30frames

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

There has been much talk about YouToogle and possible replacements for the titan of web video. No one is happy with the picture quality of Das Tube – other than R Kelly who enjoys the graininess because it allows Kells to claim that ain’t him sexing the underage girls on the home video.

There will someday (and soon) be a new and improved YouTube. Maybe Google will upgrade their new purchase to HD or maybe some other new site will come in and have better tech that pushes out Das Tube. It will happen, but the details don’t matter. Not to me and not to the regular people who have made YouTube the hit it is.

I posted that in December of 2006. That is three years ago (checks math). Yes, three years ago. Nothing has changed except that the R Kelly joke is stale and the name of ‘possible replacement’ music video site has changed.

In 2006 I was commenting on the hype around a site called Zudeo which was going to change the face of music on the interwebs. Zudeo is currently down for maintenance so we can’t be sure if it has accomplished its mission of global domination.

The reason this has re-entered my egg nog and everclear infused brain is because in December 2009 we have a new and improved video savior – Vevo. This new site was started by Universal Music Group and has most of the significant labels on board, other than Warners. Saint Bono has called Vevo “the birth of a new model for our industry,” probably while UMG executives gave him the ‘thumbs up’ from the side of the stage. They even got some of that Ay-Rabb money to help launch the latest game changer.

The problem is that Vevo seems to be the exact same thing as the last UMG ‘solution’ – PluggedIn. If you don’t remember PluggedIn – don’t feel bad, I didn’t either.

Vevo has now launched and they have some exclusive content (for how long?) and the videos do look sharp and the lay-out is nice. Is this enough of a ‘plus’ for web users to stop searching and watching on the YouTube/Google axis? Google searches also turn up clips on daily motion, vimeo, vodpod and others - something that is an Achilles heel for Vevo, since their catalog is relatively limited. In 2010, are users interested in (willing to?) searching more than once?

When I was poking fun of Zudeo three years ago, the issue I harped on was compatibility. The question back then was would all videos play on all browsers, and what if you had a Mac or a Windows machine? Those nuts and bolts tech issues are largely gone (Thanks, You Tube) but Vevo, with all it’s high-def-iness, still seems like a solution to a problem from half a decade ago. Why does anyone (not employed at Universal) need another music video site?

It seems that the label/artists are going to get a slightly higher ad rate for the videos seen on Vevo versus the same clips watched on YouTube. More ad revenue is great, but how will people find these videos if they don’t pop up in the major search engines? What will make music fans go to Vevo rather than (the very similar) mtvmusic.com or YouTube?

Maybe I am missing something, but this sure seems the same as it ever was.


The video above was found with three clicks via Google and it plays on dailymotion.

Read the 30frames post from December 2006 right here.

And VideoStatic has a different (and more thoughtful) perspective here.

Labels: insider, media, music video, video link, viral video, YouTube

I know, two posts in a week. It's like the old days.

Idolator linked to this post on Tripwire about a super-indie band called Team Robespierre and their recent, failed, efforts to get one of their videos played. The video has a very, um, “home made” quality to it – but apparently MTV was allegedly going to air the clip on Subterranean. The post is a blow-by-blow of how the band got the run around and felt abused by ‘the system.’

Here is a quote from the Tripwire article:

So a year after the record came out, over six months after the video debuted on Pitchfork, three months after it’s initially scheduled MTV2 air date and lots of wasted money we were given a “maybe” in early 2009. That was until we got the news that the person we had been dealing with was laid off in December. Now, not only was the status of the video up in the air, but we had no one to talk to about it.

Most of the commenters on Tripwire and Idolator have ripped the writer, who is not in the band but somehow helping them get their video not played. This does come across as some pretty spoiled baby stuff and it made me think of lots of articles I have been reading about employers, back when the economy had ‘employers,’ needing to adapt to deal with the self-absorbed attitude of recent college graduates.

This is from the Daily Mail:

Others expect to be pandered to and lack initiative, according to the report, based on responses from 217 graduate employers including investment banks, law and accountancy firms. In one case, a new recruit to a transport company was overheard on the phone to his mother saying: "I have got to go to London tomorrow and they haven't even told me how to get there."

Certainly the band misunderstood many, many things about the video airing process. All videos on television must be close captioned. Mean ole MTV didn’t make them do that – the FCC did.

The MTV programmer that liked the video enough to push it forward was replaced and the new person was not enthusiastic. Oh well, sometimes you drop your ice cream cone on the sidewalk and Allah/Jesus/Iovine doesn’t magically grant you new one.

Yes, there were silly standards and practices edits that seem hypocritical coming from he network that airs Tila Tequila. But you know what kids? Your Mommy and Daddy say you shouldn’t drink – but they (gasp) do it themselves. I could go on and on about how these kids don’t get it (too late, I know).

Obviously, Team Robespierre has already gotten more attention off this ‘scandal’ than they would have if their video had actually aired on MTV. So good for them, despite their ‘poor little hipster’ whines.

The larger issue, in my eyes, is this intersection of the amateur and the professional. Getting your band’s video up on Youtube is easy – you just post it and it is there. Granted, even YouToogle has Standards & Practices and rights issues. Once the video is there, who says it will rack up any more views than grandma’s birthday party.

As long as artists want the benefits of the professional end of the music industry – they are going to have to play by the pro’s rules. And with AMTV suddenly showing (shocker!) music videos on MTV – there might be more opportunity there.

The recent crumbling of the music label empire has made going amateur the rule – in recording music and in making music videos as well. We could argue about whether or not Team Robespierre would ever get signed to a ‘real’ label, and I am sure that the band might reply with, ‘We don’t want your smelly label, old man!’ But when the young punks want their precious video on the old man’s MTV, a label might come in handy.

Labels: insider, media, MTV, music video, trainwreck, video link, videostatic

So John Landis, the director of the most famoustest music video ever, is suing Michael Jackson for a portion of the profits from 'Thriller.' The shocker is that the contract actually says that Landis is entitled to 50% of the profits.

I saw this over on VideoStatic yesterday. The story is big news, especially since Jackson is selling the rights to 'Thriller' off to a company that will try and turn the video into a Broadway musical.

I think the point is that only now, with a big check (possibly) coming in from a theater producer – does it make sense for Landis to launch this suit. There have been a few times when directors saw hope that they might get a piece of the music video ‘profits,’ like when iTunes starting to sell videos. Remember way back when?

The problem is that there are never or almost never profits from music videos – since MVs are loss leaders for other revenue streams and MVs don’t make any money themselves.

'Thriller' is obviously the (possible) super mega-exception to this – and probably has generated some money. If 'Thriller' (the video) did make money, then it is probably the ONLY music video to ever do so. Sure videos help (helped?) CDs and cassettes (does anybody remember laughter) get sold – but that is, in and of itself, NOT making money with the video, that is promotion. Landis seems to be claiming that the video has made $2mil so he should get half of that. Who knows how much it has really made, since labels and entertainment contracts are notoriously good at hiding the back-end money from the creative types.

The other thing to remember is that Thriller was made in 1983, just two years into the existence of MTV. Back then there was no ‘standard’ contract for music videos – it was all new territory. I'm sure this contributed to the label/MJ letting Landis have a juicy 50 points of anything, even the imaginary "profits".

The contract (linked to on VS) didn’t seem set any precedents and it doesn't seem like any other directors have had the clout to get a contract like the one Landis did. In 1983 Landis was a huge, huge director. His 'American Werewolf in London' was a mega-hit and was the obvious inspiration for MJ to wanna do the 'Thriller' video (and maybe even the song) in the first place. Sadly, the Landis deal was not a precedent for future MV directors.

Other thoughts from reading the contract:

1. The budget for ‘Thriller’ seemed to be $513,769. Obviously they went way, way over that. So the ‘profits’ might have been gobbled up right there.
2. Going in, they planned on a 'making of documentary' about the video - something that was way ahead of its time.
3. It seems that Rick Baker, who did the make-up FX for 'Thriller' and 'American Werewolf', might be in line for a percentage of the back-end as well, maybe out of Landis’s half.
4. This is a good place to mention Indian Thriller.

Labels: Indian Thriller, label, media, MTV, music video, un-Indian Thriller, video link, videostatic, YouTube

Lots of interest (okay, nerdly on-line levels of interest) about a recent study in the UK that seems to indicate that our economy 3.0 savior, the Long Tail, may not have nearly as much salvation on board as some have hoped.

Read the London Times article and the thoughtful response from Mike at Idolator. Between bouts of overdosing on rum balls and Kiefer-ing my Christmas tree I decided to add in my on two pence.

My understanding of 'the Long Tail' is that all those sales of obscure items (books for Amazon, music for iTunes) will eventually make money for the retailer. That is what makes it a viable economic theory, it works for the company selling the individual bits of rarely desired stuff – not necessarily for the creator of the things being sold.

If the overhead is low enough – cheap rent to store all of Amazon’s books in warehouses in remote Kentucky or Utah, or even cheaper hard-drives full of audio files in Cupertino for iTunes – then selling one of something per year can theoretically be profitable. As long they are also selling one per year of many, many, many other things.

This is where people seemed to get confused – the Long Tail works for the retailer, not the maker of the music or book. The Long Tail, and this new British study seems to back this up, makes no guarantees that this kind of economy of smallish scale will work out for the actual content creator. In fact, it kind of shows that it doesn’t.

For a long time (pre-digital) the record labels hunted for hits believing that the blockbuster (as in movies and most other entertainments) were the things that propped up the company while they searched for the next hit. A small number of really successful artists/albums would allow labels to sign and promote enough new artists to find the next hit-maker (and also the hundreds of duds and failures that actually soak up the majority of the profits from Michael Jackson or the Crue).

My take on this is that this study does not contradict the Long Tail theory at all. This study shows exactly what the Long Tail theory would predict – amongst the handful of things that do sell, there are many things not selling much if at all.

Look at the famous Long Tail chart with that sliver of yellow extending out to the right. That is the ‘Tail,’ the vein of gold that can be mined for unanticipated (and untold?) profits. This study from the Times does not focus on the narrow sliver of sales – this study is about ALL that white space above the yellow. All the digital songs that don’t get sold, or maybe not even searched for. The study doesn’t say there is no gold in the mine, their numbers just reveal there is lots of worthless dirt piled on and around the nuggets of gold. Lots and lots of dirt.

My two main conclusions:

1. The Long Tail might work in the real world. Maybe, maybe not – this study doesn’t seem to prove or disprove the relevancy of the theory. I think the main factor in the workability of Long Tail-style sales is how low the seller can get the friction. How little overhead can they have and how much raw earth can they have on hand to allow customers to sift through to find their own personal gold. Maybe it is not possible in the real world for this to truly work (like perpetual motion) – but these new numbers don’t really shine much light on it.
2. Being the artist creating the records that sell zero copies (or even the ‘winner’ that sells one) in a year must be no fun. But that, too, is not anything new.

Here’s to a fat tail (heh, heh) in 2009. Happy Holidays and a joyful New Year.

Labels: controversy, death, download, insider, media, music video, un-Indian Thriller, YouTube

There is this dim-bulb chick from a dopey reality show who has recently made a “music video.” The clip is not very good, but if you see how they made the thing – this is no kind of surprise. The song is goofy and the video is worse – even the fact that the video’s star is a blonde in a skimpy swimsuit showing off the goods in a way that seems like it is aimed at getting clicks 9and other one-handed activity) on dailymotion rather than airplay on music television.

My point in bringing this up is not to pile on the already well-mocked artist/song/video. There are plenty of other people doing that. The reason I mention this clip is because I have come to see the response to this video as a good thing. Not because people are finally rejecting reality TV trash (ha, like that is gonna happen) – but because …

Everyone seems to realize this is NOT a real music video. I was actually surprised that the general public could tell this waste of pixels apart from a genuine video. Pleasantly surprised, indeed.

It makes me happy that people can discern a real music video shoot (like Timbaland – complete with professionals shouting in funny accents) apart from this other thing. Though one could speculate about who's body is more artificial - Timbo or Heidi.



On a side note, there is a five part interview series with Spike Jonze, Kanye and special guest Hype over on vbs. A cool bit of insight into the thought process of a star who really cares about his videos. Thanks to najork for posting on antville.

Labels: Heidi Montag, media, music video, Spike Jonze, Timbaland, trainwreck, video link, viral video, YouTube

A high-school reunion usually prompts people to try and get themselves together – or at least act like it. Gym memberships, Rogaine and spray-on tans often mark the lead up to the big event – but they can’t quite make us look as good as we did back then.

“Thriller” is like the one person coming back for the get-together at the Double Tree that everyone remembers clearly. In fact he has been the talk of the town the whole time – both for the wild successes and the, umm, rumors of other stuff. Unfortunately, Thriller looks so different that some people might not even recognize all the new facial features.

The LA Times goes over the top-selling record of all-time, track by track and lets us know that “Thriller” was pretty darn good. I am particularly partial to “Billie Jean” – the beat is a towering monument to the genius of Quincy. When it comes to the title track, the video comes up:

"Thriller": If ever a video killed the radio star, "Thriller" was it. The song was adequately groovy -- funked-out beat, lyrics seemingly lifted from some little kid's "scary storybook" -- but the video was legendary: bearing a price tag of $800,000, the 14-minute mini-film was the most expensive video of its time. Back then it was over the top; to today's viewer, jaded by bloated-budget videos, it still looks epic -- and deliciously campier than ever. - LAT

Is anyone feeling “jaded by bloated-budget videos”? Maybe if newspaper types weren’t so busy getting laid-off (and writing about same), they might have noticed that 25 years is a long ass time.

Also, posting about real Thriller, obligates me to also mention, umm, you know.

Labels: Indian Thriller, media, music video, un-Indian Thriller, videostatic

The LA Times did another one of their “Ultimate Top Ten Lists” – cataloging the artists that have made the most money in the last year. The musician with the biggest/longest tour are always the champs and in 2007 it was The Police that earned the most. Less than 10% of their earnings were from selling music and the bulk of the cash came from concert ticket sales – it helps to have an fan base with well-paying jobs (i.e old people like The Police and the Stones).

Digital tracks grew, but still ended up being a drop in the bucket for artists. The ring-tone phenomenon also does not look quite as savior-y as it once appeared:

"Likewise, although some performers are developing comfortable incomes from ring-tone sales, the mostly young R&B, hip-hop and pop acts who placed highest on SoundScan's ring-tone/master-tone tallies aren't anywhere near the top of either concert tour or album sales rankings. So ring tone isn't included -- yet -- because it wouldn't affect any rankings in the Ultimate Top 10." - LAT

The fact that touring is such a big part of the money makes it clear why Live Nation wanted that fat chunk of the ticket and merch from Madonna (and apparently Jonas Bros as well).

CDs have become the loss leader for the artist – the thing that they do to get them back out on the road for some more of those lucrative concert dates.

The music is the loss leader for the merchants at Best Buy or Target – getting people in the door with discounted CDs where they will (hopefully) buy the more profitable Monster Cables and fabric softener.

The music video was always the loss leader for the record label – the thing that they pay for (and make zero money from) to promote the music, but the music itself seems to have become another loss leader. You can see why music video budgets are shrinking – the money the labels have is shrinking AND the music video process is now even one more step removed from the profits (touring and merch).

Music videos were never profitable for labels on their own, but at least they were tied to the core business - they helped sell records. Now that the core business is concert tickets and t-shirts?

Each step removed from the actual income, means less dollars makes it through. Like college buddies sipping your beer before they pass it on down the stadium row from the vendor – the thirsty guy at the end only ends up with backwash and sheepish looks from his friends.

Maybe Live Nation wants to hire someone to make videos to show at concerts to encourage fans to go out to the lobby and enjoy some delicious Jonas Brothers t-shirts.

Labels: Madonna, media, music video, prod co

Before you read this, you have to check out James’ post over on SRO. Seriously, this whole post is me arguing with that post, so you better read that first or this will make even less sense that I normally make. And it's pretty good, too.

James is definitely correct that MTV was never perfect. Many people in the MV community have an incredible amount of nostalgia for a Viacom sponsored Utopia where clips ran like honey and it was always “120 Minutes” (but never “Yo! MTV Raps” – hmm). James is right, we all need to let that fantasy go. “Where Have You Gone, Nina Blackwood?!?!”

That being said, MTV hasn’t always sucked. James writes that MTV was flawed from its inception, but I completely disagree. Sitting through three hours of Erasure and Lionel Richie videos to get to ZZ Top is obviously not gonna work today. But back then, it was great. I eagerly sat through the clips I didn’t like (and probably learned a lot, like sometimes it rains men, whatever that means) because it was way better than doing my homework. Would that young version of me have preferred to click and watch “Hot For Teacher” over and over again? Sure, but he might have never seen a music video once he learned he could also click and see porn, but I digress.

Early Roman sewers would seem terrible by modern standards (now there's a digression). For more info, check sewerhistory.org. Those early sewers would not meet today’s building codes, but at the time, they were an advancement that allowed for urban living – where cities could grow large without disease wiping out swaths of the downhill population every summer. Early MTV, was a leap forward – but still not what viewers want today (insert river of shit joke here).

Okay, sewers may be a stretch. Watch an old music video and see how long the shots last. They hold on some angle as the singer awkwardly lip-syncs, unsure if they are supposed to faux-sing AT the lens or not – and the shot holds and holds and it seems like forever. Tastes change. What worked back when doesn’t work now – but that doesn’t mean that it sucked back then. Our perspective has changed, but the history has not.

You could argue that YouToogle is great for viewers – we can see what we want, when we want it. That certainly is progress. But what is convenient for us is not always better for the industry. It would be convenient for me if Ferraris were free, but the people that make Ferraris probably have a different view.

When MTV (and radio) pushed content at us – we passively absorbed clips we didn’t specifically search out. They shoved stuff down our throats and a lot of the time we bought it, like a pre-blue pill Neo. Freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose.”

The IntraTubes have not shown much of an ability to convince people to go buy an LP/cassette/CD/MP3/brain-chip implant. This new “click it yourself” model is great at getting the videos out there, but – at least so far – not so good at turning those eyeballs into dollars. Those dollars turned into music video budgets for all the clips we loved (and the ones we sat through as well).

Labels: media, MTV, music video, TRL, viral video, YouTube

If you work in music videos you have probably had this conversation with someone – perhaps a relative, someone older than 25 or pretty much anyone not in the “tween” or “hipster” demographics. They are the Normal People.

NORMAL PERSON
What do you do?

YOU
I work in music videos.

NORMAL PERSON
Really? I love music videos! Which ones have you worked on?

YOU
(Name of most recent job)

NORMAL PERSON
{Blank Stare}

YOU
(Name of larger, more famous job you worked on months earlier)

NORMAL PERSON
{Blinks, then more staring}

YOU
Lot’s of videos. You probably haven’t seen them. MTV hardly shows videos anymore.

NORMAL PERSON
You know what video I like? That one where Michael Jackson turns into a werewolf. (Or perhaps they will cite the one where the Pearl Jam guy jumps off the balcony or the one where Puffy parties and drinks champagne.)

Let’s face it, normal people don’t watch videos. They did when they were in the right age category – but they’re not anymore. Normal people will complain that MTV has changed (which it has) – but regular people “age out” of the MTV demographic, just like kids age out of watching Nickelodeon. Normal People don’t know much about videos, and they are fine with that.

For those Normal People who think that they love music videos but yet can’t recall a single video since Peter Gabriel Shocked the monkey (and no, not the LCD Soundsystem one) – the AP has given them the 411.

Maura at Idolator linked to the AP article about the falling budget-scape of the MV world (you may have heard about that).

Stavros Merjos, founder of HSI Productions and a longtime producer of videos for acts ranging from Britney Spears to Will Smith, doesn't expect to ever see another $2 million video: "The record industry as a whole has shrunk. There's not as much money to throw around."

Merjos sees the effect particularly in hip-hop, where sales declines have been the steepest and extravagant videos by the likes of Notorious B.I.G., Dr. Dre, Diddy and Jay-Z used to be commonplace. "You were expected to have a big video if you were a top-flight or a serious up-and-coming hip-hop artist," says Merjos. "They're not doing the size that they were doing in the heyday. - AP

This got me wondering. This article is clearly written for Normal People – who barely think about videos and probably believe MTV is still running episodes of Singled Out, Austin Stories and Cribs (oops, they still ARE airing Cribs) instead of their beloved Banarama clips. I don’t begrudge those Normals their lack of interest in MVs, I have trouble sustaining my own interest at times. But if the level of music video knowledge and interest implied by this article probably doesn’t come with much “giving a shit” about budgets on the part of the reader.

Big ups to the AP for dropping the mad knowledge on the Normals, anyway. Next week, an article on how they really made Lionel Richie dance on that ceiling.

Labels: death, media, music video, TRL

Not to start this down the road of the Mac/Win wars, the Sunni/Shia thing is bad enough – but Apple announced some new products and it started me thinking.

It seems that only ones really winning in the new music marketplace are at opposite ends of the (perceived) quality spectrum. On the “low” end is Koch Records – a record label that was once the 99-Cent Store of labels, but now seems to have a new hit every couple of weeks.

On the high-end is Apple and their own 99 centavo mercado – iTunes. They make a cut for every song (and video and ringtone) they sell – all without having to spend the kind of promo dollars that labels do. Would you rather pay for four (seven?) expensive videos for 50 Cent and then hope he beats out Kanye (and Kenny Chesney) for enough soundscans to pay back the dough spent up front or run a website that cranks out the same profit no matter if people buy a song on Sony or Warners?

Sure Apple pays a lot to advertise their iWorld. And they use music videos to do it. The Feist clip I like turns up on the ads to the new ChunkyNano. Watch the commercial and see that at the end there are links to buy the song and to buy the video. Anything that helps the artist sell music (at least via iTunes) is good for Apple. And all the things that don’t help the artist, are of no concern to Apple. The Cupertinians get much of the reward with none of the risk. Is it my imagination or does that seem to be Steve Job's God-like fingers pinching the whole music industry in that photo?

Apple has almost no challengers in the mobile music market. They seem to have a monopoly on the way music is played, Apple's desire for memory is THE thing that drives the computer chip market and other giants of commerce are teaming up to form a company (that will probably get its ass kicked) to try and get in on the business that Apple is dominating – just because the business is so damn profitable.

The new Apple devices will allow users to download songs directly to iPhones and TouchPods using wifi. Users will pay once for the song and then again for the ringtone of the same song. The videos on the glossy iPhone and iPod screens look better than they do on YouToogle – and the iPhone has its own YouTube which even looks better than the regular one. Seen through Mac-colored glasses the music industry (and video especially) looks pretty damn sunny. But that is just from the Steve Jobs POV.

As the music industry takes on water and tries to act like there aren’t pieces of iceberg all over the deck, Apple is still riding the wave of the one thing the music industry has in excess – cool. Music and music videos are cool. That used to make us rich. Now videos make Apple rich while the rest of us work hard to turn a profit creating videos and wonder why we didn’t buy more shares of Apple before the latest announcement.

Labels: media, music video, selling, YouTube

Pardon me for the possibility of dead horse beating ...

Last weekend's feature film box office receipts illustrate exactly why "viral video" is a terrible business model. Look at the photo atop this post. Have you seen it before? How many hundreds of times? Miss Lohan literally could NOT have been receiving more attention last week - just before the opening of her new film I Know Who Killed Me. Surely, this kind of coverage will get people into the theater, if even to watch a train wreck! But then -

Her movie opens in ninth place. The movie tanked. No one went to see "I Know Who Killed Me", even though it starred one of the most famous (infamous) people alive. All that attention and almost no dollars. And that is my point. Attention and dollars are not the same thing.

This is the same lack of real world results that viral videos brought to OK-Go.

Viral videos can only help an artist if they turn the attention gathered by the free clip into something more real - like a career, concert bookings or paying off that pesky Verizon bill. Attention is great. The audience obviously have to know who you are before they even know they want to buy your concert ticket, t-shirt or music (notice what order those are in). Attention is a good starting point but ...

Only if the audience ends up wanting more. Viral videos are great at grabbing attention, but very poor at turning that attention into the kind of audience/artist relationship where the wallet ever comes out.

Yes, the Lohan movie was terrible (a 7% from Rotten Tomatoes) - but if the prospect of seeing Lindsay as a stripper won't bring people to theaters after this kind of coverage - what chance does some puny rock band have?

Maybe this is just TOO capitalistic and musicians should only aspire to fame and attention with no regard for the concerns of Mammon. If that is the case, then I give you the most famous rockstars in the world - - - prisoners from Cebu Province in the Philippines.

Labels: media, music video, viral video, YouTube

Sorry for the long delay between posts. Real life intrudes …

Anyway, the LA Times ran an article on Sunday about the growing trend of “indie” or “alt” artists getting their music placed in television commercials for the most surprising products. This once verboten avenue for money and exposure seems to be getting more well trod and respectable by the minute.

The article treats the issue of licensing music to commercial endeavors with an even-handed-ness not often seen in the mainstream media. It will probably surprise no one that reads this blog that I found some people’s response to the “dead punker” campaign from Doc Marten’s to be a bit hysterical:

"Tasteless!" ran a headline in TheDailySwarm.com, the website that broke the story. (The images were licensed for use in the UK through Corbis, the original photos' supplier, apparently without permission from the musicians' estates.) Cobain's widow, Courtney Love, lamented the "despicable use" of her husband's image. Fan outcry lighted up hundreds of blogs worldwide. And as a coda, executives at Dr. Martens apologized for the "offensive" ads and fired Saatchi & Saatchi, the agency responsible for them. - LA Times

The artists should be able to control their music and image and the fact that Kurt and Joey are getting pimped out post mortem – does strike me as a bit creepy. But if musicians wanna sign up for the Madison Avenue checks – more power to them. No one would mistake John Mellencamp or Mr. Zimmerman as patsies – but they seem to have no problem with the strategy.

Does anyone remember when Neil Young did a whole song and video about how he would never sell out to advertisers? That seems almost quaint today.

It is no shock that a staid advertiser like Cadillac would turn to formerly “threatening to the system” rock and roll like Led Zeppelin when their “old and prosperous” demographic starts to include the formerly dirty hippies that loved Zep back in the day and now want to get their clubs to the golf course in style. That Devo is reworking “Whip It” into “Swiff It” themselves seems (at least to me) incredibly subversive and funny.

The twist to me is that advertisers WANT edgy, odd and not necessarily all that well-know pop songs for their ads. The article has lots of good details and Chris Lee hits on the main reason that recordings artists are starting to be down for this kind of thing …

TV commercials give the kind of exposure that rock radio or music television can no longer deliver. That iPod commercial for Jet’s big hit certainly got the band a ton of attention which led to an even more lucrative appearance in a movie trailer that was seen many more times than the actual movie.

So a commercial can help a band’s career, by getting them out to a larger audience but the music can also generate money for a band. No duh, right? But the twist in 2007 is that bands, even REAL popular ones, might be struggling to make money any other way. Sure they can tour, but the once lucrative world of catalog CD sales has cratered unless you are one of the lucky bands selling albums entitled “Legend,” “Eagles Greatest Hits” or “Back in Black.”

What the decline in music sales (both new and catalog) has done is take the edge of pride off artists. What were the Stones gonna get for one of their songs in the 1980s? Probably a good amount, but they had plenty of money and more on the way. The bad press generated by licensing a song was not worth the (relatively) small payout. The hippy ethos of the 60s also loomed over the industry, making bands very nervous of being seen treating their music like a money-making career, even if that is exactly what it was.

Now in 2007, with labels not a reliable source of money, and the “bad press” much less bad – the upside surely outweighs the bad. Does licensing a song make you look like a sell out, or a smart businessman? Probably depends on if anyone actually wants your songs.

Labels: label, media, music video, selling, YouTube

In last Sunday’s LA Times Magazine (sorry, West) there was an article by noted photographer Robert Landau about his relationship with the massive rock and roll billboards that used to line West Hollywood’s Sunset Strip. Landau grew up in the area and started taking photos of the billboards at a young age. The LAT article is interesting for the great photos which you can sample on Landau’s personal website but there was also this final paragraph that jumped out at me:

The Strip's rock billboards flourished right up until MTV supplanted them in the early 1980s. The importance placed on producing videos for airplay on the fledgling network sucked most of the promotion resources right out of recording artists' budgets. Today the marketing focus is not on gargantuan, hand-crafted imagery but rather file card-size vignettes that dance and sing in YouTube videos.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess. Nostalgia is a bitch, but the billboards sure were cool.

Labels: death, media, music video

Make sure you read the previous posts on viral videos or you will be wondering why I am starting with the number four.

Once again, I am back to pontificate on why I think the whole “viral video” thing is such a non-factor in the world of music videos. There is some reasonable debate over what is and isn't a viral video. I would probably categorize a video as viral if it is getting passed around for it's visual impact, humor, shock value, and so on. "Hey, check out the new video from the band I like, Silversun Pickups" would not really be a viral thing in my book. Drop a comment if you disagree.

What I mean by “non-factor”
Before you go on about how wrong I am and how I should look at OkGo – please read the previous post. I like OkGo. They seem like fun. Their videos were cool and took lots of dedication – but so f*%&ing-what. The point of a music video is to get people to buy your record and those videos, despite massive hype in all kinds of mainstream media, did not do the job. As Xzibit would say – “Check the soundscan.”

But attention CAN lead to sales, right? Sure, but if the avalanche (based on indie music scale) of attention the treadmill dudes got won’t do it, nothing your band can come up with will. Big time advertisers go viral to help out wacky sports related comedy films and bite-sized cars – but for those products the, viral video is a tiny, tiny part of the marketing. For most musical artists, the music video (viral or not) might be the whole marketing campaign.

And attention, in and of itself, is not success (or money or career). Just “getting attention” is what the tap-dancing homeless guy does on the street corner or the self-destructive goth girl at your high school that blew everyone and then realized maybe she didn’t want that kind of attention. Music videos have to turn attention into a purchase – and viral videos do that about as well as the slutty girl turned a BJ into a relationship.

Reason #4 why I largely dismiss the power of viral videos:
Viral videos make the wrong kind of impression.
The thing that draws us to watch viral videos is that the images stand out. They are visual jokes or unexpected bursts of violence/sex that entertain us for a moment – then are gone. We like them, but we don’t love them. And breaking out the credit card takes love.

Some real famous YouToogle clips are the mentos experiment guys and the trampoline bear. Most everyone has seen these clips. Ask people on the street and they will nod in acknowledgement when you say “diet coke and mentos.” What people DON’T want is to know more about the breath-mint-ologists or hear what kind of songs the tranquilized bear might have recorded on Garage Band.

The connection viral video watchers have with a high-speed freeway chase or a father getting blasted in the nuts by his oblivious child is very different from the kind of connection music fans have with their favorite bands. In fact, I would say that the kind of viral attention drawn by water-skiing squirrel actually works against the viewer taking anything to do with that video seriously.

The term is “a mile wide, but an inch deep.” Interest in viral videos is just that – a mile wide and an inch deep. Everyone wants to watch the 20 second trampoline bear video clip, no one wants to buy the trampoline bear DVD.

Not only is the viral video impression a shallow one – I believe it makes the artist come across as cheap and disposable. If I can get this for free at any point in time by typing “okgo treadmill” into a web-browser, why should I pay real money for it? What makes this something to own rather than something that lives on the web I can call up whenever I feel like it?

In conclusion, viral video might make some kind of impression – but it is not the kind of attention you want. Unless you are still rocking the black lip-stick and hanging around under the bleachers after practice.

Labels: media, music video, selling, viral video, YouTube

The changes in the music video world are driven, largely, by record labels. Labels are consolidating and closing up at an alarming pace. When Tower Records goes under – you know things aren’t going well. But I would say that the softening/collapse/death of retail is still not the main reason for the shifting world of music video.

The changes in music television are, in my opinion, responsible for labels deciding to spend less on music video even faster than MC Hammer cut back on his race-horse purchases once the bubble burst.

But these changes are not new. I wrote about MTV not airing videos way back when and Video Static did it even earlier. I found an intriguing bit on altmusictv about the same issue. The post lists the weekday MTV schedule from February 1998 and compares it to 2007’s reality TV fest:

“Now, I remember back in the late '90s, people were already saying that MTV had lost its way, but in retrospect, it seems almost like bliss.”

Read the full list on altmusictv and realize how much music actually aired then.

Who could resist Ananda? Well, most people. MTV stopped showing videos because you stopped watching them. MTV needed to draw more eyeballs and every game show and sports special MTV ran got much better ratings than the endless wave of videos that MTV normally ran. So they changed what they normally ran. And this happened longer ago than you think, MTV first ran the game show, Remote Control, in 1987.

The people at MTV would have been fools to ignore the data, so music videos got less airtime (while still remaining the "face" of the franchise) and reality TV got more. Even in MTV's earliest stages – where the viewer ship was low, but the channel was at it’s most influential – straight-up, un-cut videos have never drawn lots of viewers. One music video insider is quoted as saying, “video hours are always pathetically rated.” Even with Ananda.

There are plenty of new outlets for music videos, but the raw power of videos came largely from the unified group of eyeballs that saw them. That pool of viewers grows larger, but ever more diluted over the intrawebs and all the other new technology.

I have the sneaking suspicion that, someday music video types will look back on the “glory days” of Cribs and Punk’d with the warm, yet bittersweet joy of a 35 year-old recalling when grunge was cool and they had all their hair.

Labels: death, media, music video, videostatic

Virgin and Capitol are getting folded in together by corporate parent EMI. The famous Capitol Records building may be turned into loft apartments (sorry, Sinatra sex-pad already purchased).

In Friday's LAT, many expressed fear that all EMI/Capitol/Virgin operations for the US would be run out of New York:

Art Alexakis, singer of the band Everclear, which has been on the Capitol roster since the 1990s, said he believed that the move signaled EMI would be on the sales block soon.

"I think really it's no secret that they're bringing in people to get the place in shape so that they can sell it," Alexakis said. "The only way to make it look profitable on paper is to downsize. The heyday of the entire music business looks to be long gone, and so I think now you see companies trying to figure out what's next."

Even the guy from Everclear knows that newly ousted Andy Slater might have been the one guy keeping Capitol in their distinctive West Coast HQ. The new dude in charge, Jason Flom, will have no such nostalgia for the building. This also clears teh way for Warner Bros to team up with this new Capitol/Virgin unit.

What does this mean for music videos? Not sure, since Capitol was never a big believer in the power of videos to begin with. The Warners merger seems very likely now and the two smallest MV budget labels can team up like the wonder twins.

Entire LA Times article is here.

Labels: death, insider, label, media, music video

More posts are coming, not to worry.

Below is an article from the Austin Chronicle about the realities of contracts and money for artists sign with labels. The Chronicle is the Austin version of the Village Voice or LA Weekly, you know, the free lesbian personal ad and medicinal marijuana website paper. By the way, if you think this blog is way too concerned with business and the record industry in general stifles the beauty and artistry of music, you might wanna consider a move to Austin.

Overall, the piece is concise and it covers a lot of good details just as well as some much longer books I have read. The article is from 1998, but most of the info is just as relevant today. The part about a band making their first video was (obviously) the most intriguing to me:

And videos! That's recoupable money as well. And like anything else in the music business, costs can quickly get out of hand. As a self-described hippie without a perm during his Dangerous Toys hey-day, McMaster was somewhat bewildered when the band showed up to do its first video and saw a make-up artist and stylist on the set and on the payroll - their payroll.

"Those people were there to make us look good. I understand that," says McMaster. "But out of control is out of control. It would have been nice to go, `We don't need this, we don't need this, we don't need this. And we don't need this.' But I'm in Texas getting on a plane to go out there and start shooting a video. I show up and all of the shit is there already. It's not in my hands. We spent $80,000 on the video. It was fucking stupid. You can make a great video for under $2,000. It's silly."

You can read the whole article from the Austin Chronicle whilst I ponder on about the great $2K video.

Labels: media, music video, philosophy

The list of Grammy nominated videos came out this week. I believe the selections are solid and remind me of the choices the Grammy voters seem to make every year. In the same way a famous actor playing a character that is fat/ugly/retarded almost assures an Oscar nod, the Grammys seem to look for certain things.

The main thing they look for is a “hook.” Hooks are good, they sell treatments to labels and make for some memorable videos. The Grammy voters like ultra-high concept stuff like “Hey Ya!” and the dancing Walken video – which is certainly not a bad thing.

This year the nominees are Big & Rich with a tear-jerker about war veterans, The Killers with a telenovella, Chili Peppers with themselves playing dress-up, Underoath wedged into a nightmare dollhouse and OK GO bouncing around on choreographed treadmills. I believe OK GO is/will be one of the most significant and memorable clips for this era of music video, despite what some people might think. The full list of Grammy nominations is here.

On a side note, the long-form nominations are usually a collection of uninteresting concert footage, backstage interviews and old videos. This year is the same except for the Death Cab collection which is fresh new stuff. Congrats for those involved.

Back to the short-form nominees. All these are good videos and the makers should be proud. High concept videos are neither good nor bad in my book – some are excellent others are Trapped in the Closet. Those big hooks and high concepts certainly jump off the page in treatment form, which is definitely a good thing.

Hook videos are sort of the opposite of the “execution” videos I have written about before. Execution videos, like Beyonce’s “Crazy in Love” or No Doubt’s “Hella Good” are not ‘about’ any one thing but rather more focused on performance, the photography and style. Execution videos are also often harder to describe in one sentence, at least in a way that makes them sound like a good idea for a label to shell out $$$ for. Seriously, Hella Good is the band in vaguely futuristic/apocalyptic looks, completely alone in and around a decrepit cargo ship all shot in black and white. That doesn’t sound great in one sentence, but the final video was excellent (IMO). Hook videos are the opposite, with quick, easily digestable pitches (RHCP perform on stage in dressed and shot like a living history book of rock and roll, from British Invasion to Glam Metal and everything in between). Both “types” of videos (and there are obviously way more variations and shades of grey than just these two) can produce great results but the hookier ideas are easier to sell to the client and they are usually the kind that award shows (like the Grammys) notice.

I, personally, don’t think that hook videos are usually the best for a new artist. The performers can get lost in the hub-bub of the idea, which is fine if you are as famous as the Killers or Flea, but not so good if you are the guys in Underoath.

I don’t think that the Underoath video really serves the band because most viewers have never seen them before and after watching the video, still haven't seen them. I feel like I wouldn’t recognize them if I saw them again. To me, they get lost in the cool visuals of the clip. Same thing for that Jamiroquai “Virtual Insanity” video, their only clip that ever aired much in the US. I am still not sure I know anything about the group. Band? Solo guy? I don’t know. I do know the Jamiroquai dude is famous in the UK but Americans don’t dance we just pull up our pants and do the roc-a-way.

Execution videos usually make better introductions to new performers or artists switching to a new image – “Crazy in Love” or Christina’s first “Genie in a Bottle.” Execution videos usually have longer close-ups and they focus more on performance without too much story, effects or concept getting in the way. I have encountered labels booking a job based on a hooky concept that is fun to read and then the same execs try to turn the finished clip into an execution video during the shoot and/or edit, usually with poor results.

On a side note, I have recently figured out how to see who logged onto this blog and what link referred them and so on. Basic stuff, but that’s how I roll. Anyway – I have been getting a trickle of traffic from people who have Googled “execution videos” and are really looking for something far, far darker that I have to offer.

I know some commenters don’t like the tone of the blog, because it is too grim and they don’t like the view I have of the music video industry. To those people I say, Sony and Warner Bros laid off MORE employees in the video departments on Friday. I ain’t making this stuff up and at least no one gets “executed” here.

Labels: contest, media, music video, review, videostatic

If it’s in the LA/Chicago Times it must be true. Right?

There is a piece in Friday’s edition of the Los Angeles Times explaining how the lack of Grammy nominations in hip-hop means that rapping on records has lost it’s creative steam. Certainly the best judges of what is and is not a creative force in music are the septuagenarians and Steely Dan fans that make up Grammy voters.

Some of the article is Senior Citizen hogwash. Newspapers are aimed at your parents, so the stories tend to reflect their interests (like “Them Intranet Tubes Try to Steal Social Security Checks” and “Why Do They Have to Drive So Fast?”)

But Boucher and Lee do get to some salient points. TI’s album is the only rap-based record in the Top 20 in sales for the year. They also point out that lots of other music in the Year-End Top Ten is not rap-based but is hip-hop influenced (JT, Mary J). Plus many of the "big" rap releases (Jay Z, Game) are at the end of the year so they will sell less copies in calendar 2006. Even Mr. "Hip Hop is Dead" himself, Nas, has record coming out in 2006, but buried on Dec. 15. I guess Nas's boss didn't want the sales competition.

There is also the acknowledgement of the changing business model that is working its way through the music world – by starting in hip-hop:

"Hip-hop and urban music is just as strong as it has been, it's just that now its success is coming in new places and in new ways," said Jay Frank, the chief of programming for Yahoo Music. "There's a lot of digital downloads and ring tones being sold, and in some cases this is music that is being very successful in ways other than selling CDs."

Sixteen-year-old rapper Jibbs is an example. His debut album has sold a humble 126,000 copies since its release in October. But one sing-song track on the CD, "Chain Hang Low," an ode to diamond necklaces, has sold 1.4 million ring tones. Those sound clips, used to personalize cell phones, usually cost about $2 each. (full article here)

I hadn’t realized that Jibbs had sold so few CDs, nor that many ring-tones. Things are changing, but it certainly is not all bad. I guess that the growing youthification of the music scene means consumers who can afford to buy songs one at a time but aren’t committed/wealthy enough to buy the whole disc. Kind of like that shady liquor store that sold cigarettes for a quarter each, knowing the market was all underage kids. Anyone else remember that? Maybe that was just me and all the other kids with the Hessian rat-tail combs.

More on the Grammy Nominations in a bit.

Labels: download, media, music video