More Research On The Importance Of Connecting With Fans

Studies

from the truly-connect,-and-the-revenue-follows dept

Dave Carter writes in to share some recent research that he was involved in, examining how well different promotions strategies worked for 99 different independent musicians in Australia. All the typical caveats apply — including that this was just limited to Australian artists, and plenty more research needs to be done to show a causal relationship — but the initial results certainly support the view that many of us have been espousing: that bands who really connect with their fans get a real boost in actual revenue. And, really connecting means actually doing some work — not just tossing up a MySpace page. Some summaries of the findings:

• The highest proportional returns to artists corresponded with the use of multiple inter-linked sites, including a dedicated website or blog as well the use of mailing lists and the provision of free content. Of the artists studied, few had developed this type of integrated or strategic web presence and many of the artists studied could be making more effective use of the tools available to them.
• When viewed in isolation, the use of popular web services such as Myspace, Facebook and YouTube to promote an artists music did not correspond to a dramatic increase in artist earnings. In fact, as a whole, users of Myspace or Triple J’s popular Unearthed website actually received proportionally lower returns than the median. However higher levels of fan or audience engagement — for example in the form of Blog coverage, YouTube views, Facebook fans or Myspace friends — tended to correspond to proportionally higher artist earnings inclusive of services whose users tended receive lower returns overall.
• Finally, the level to which higher earnings corresponded to online activity appears relative to artists off-line profile. That is, artists who perform and tour regularly, receive radio airplay and off-line press and media coverage tend to receive significantly higher returns and appear more likely to benefit from online promotional activities.

Most of this should be pretty obvious — the more you connect with fans, and the more you do to get heard, the better off you’re likely to be — but it’s amazing that so many musicians still don’t bother with putting in the necessary effort.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, independent musicians, research

Dear Newspapers: Time To Focus On Enabling The Community; Not Limiting It

Studies

from the try-this-again dept

As we keep hearing from newspaper execs (and sometimes, reporters) insisting that paywalls or micropayments are the solution to what ails the industry, we keep asking why people will pay. The whole reason why newspapers used to work as a business model was that they collected a community around news. But, these days, there are much better communities out there. The newspapers haven’t kept up. And, when it comes to news, people want to participate. They’re not passive. That might mean contributing to the news or commenting on the news, but just as likely it means sharing and spreading the news, as well. But nearly every proposal from newspapers looks to limit that ability, which only makes it less valuable to the very community the newspapers need, driving them elsewhere. We’ve been saying for years that newspapers need to focus on enabling communities, but that still seems to be the last thing on most of their minds.

For example, this rather depressing discussion of research presented at the Future of Journalism conference concerning participatory media suggests that many in the newspaper business view the whole “participation” thing as a pain to be dealt with. Very few look for ways to better enable the community — most seem focused on how to prevent the community from doing something bad, or looking for other ways to somehow limit the community.

And then you have situations like this:

Finding newsworthy material in contributions from the public is a challenge. In his study about Dutch newspapers and UGC presented at the conference, Piet Bakker found that there was little news contained in comments on stories.

From the point of view of the traditional journalist, the amount of news in comments was minimal. Instead, comments were seen as a way to attract more visitors and increase loyalty, but these benefits were counterbalanced by problems with abusive comments, a lack of contributions, and the cost of moderation.

They’re viewing the entire thing backwards. First, they’re complaining that there’s “little news contained in comments.” But who said there was supposed to be? It’s the basic difference between reporting and a discussion. But the newspaper folks are so focused on having to be “reporters” that they’re missing the fact their community wants to have a discussion around the news. Instead, it’s seen as a bad thing that it’s “not news.” Furthermore, rather than being seen as a way to enable the community, comments are reduced to a way to attract more visitors. If you’re just looking to attract more visitors, there are all sorts of things you can do. If you want to enable the community, it takes a different mindset.

Of course, not every newspaper person thinks that way. Techdirt reader Shane Richmond, who is the head of technology for the Telegraph, has written up a report for the Nieman Foundation, discussing the various ways that paper is looking to enable the community. As you read through it, it’s not about page views or having the community submit stuff for journalists to do the real work on, it’s actually all about enabling the community: enabling them to have a voice, enabling them to connect with one another and even enabling them to have an audience. As Richmond notes, there’s still a lot more to do, but it looks like the Telegraph is approaching this with the right mindset. It would be great to see more newspapers follow the same path.

Filed Under: community, journalism, newspapers, participatory journalism

Overstock Told That 'Browserwrap' Agreement Is Unenforceable

Legal Issues

from the or-is-it? dept

It’s still not entirely clear what online agreements are actually enforceable and which aren’t. We’ve seen cases go both ways, with a recent ruling even noting that terms that are a hyperlink away, rather than on the agreement page itself, may be enforceable. But the latest case, involving online retailer Overstock went in the other direction. A court found that Overstock’s arbitration requirement was unenforceable, because, as “browserwrap,” the user was not adequately notified. Eventually, it seems that someone’s going to have to make it clear what sorts of online terms are actually enforceable (if any). Until then, we’re going to see a lot more lawsuits like this one.

Filed Under: agreements, arbitration, browserwrap, eulas
Companies: overstock

China Cracks Down On Pirated Teaching Materials?

Overhype

from the for-the-children,-of-course dept

To hear the US entertainment industry talk about it, China doesn’t respect any intellectual property at all. The truth, of course, is a lot more nuanced than that, but it’s still a bit odd to read that China is proudly cracking down on the threat of “pirated teaching materials,” which the government deems dangerous because it “harm[s] the healthy development of the country’s youth.” It’s unclear how cheaper or even free teaching materials “harm” youth, but the speculation is that it’s more about the government not liking the content than any real worry about “piracy.” But, these days, due to pressure from other countries, China doesn’t mind an excuse to pretend that it’s being tough on piracy.

Filed Under: china, pirates, teaching materials

Want Healthcare Reform That Works? Get Rid Of Patents

Predictions

from the and-watch-innovation-flow dept

Economist David Levine (author of the book Against Intellectual Monopoly) has a column up at the Huffington Post, where he explains why abolishing pharma patents would be a great way to reform healthcare. He runs through many of the arguments against such a move, and explains why they don’t make much sense:

But, perhaps, without all those extra monopoly profits we wouldn’t have such great new products? The fact is there aren’t so many great new products – a well known fact among health economists is that while big pharma’s spending has soared the last decade, as patent control has tightened, drug discovery has plummeted. Pharmaceutical innovation is not lower in Europe, despite of big pharma’s lower monopoly profits. While the market for pharmaceuticals is now largely a global one, so local rules may not be so important, this was less true in the past. Historically, before pharmaceutical patents were introduced in Italy in 1978, that country accounted for about 8% of new pharmaceutical discoveries worldwide. After the industry was strangled by patents, that percentage dropped to practically zero. Switzerland, a powerhouse in the world drug industry, introduced pharmaceutical patents at about the same time. While Switzerland’s fall has not been as dramatic as Italy’s, it too is much less of a powerhouse today than it was before 1977.

Patents do not seem to lead to the innovation their proponents claim. The list of examples goes on and on: the discovery of the one-dose HIV cocktail that replaced the complicated multi-pill regime? That took place in India a country that at that time did not allow pharmaceutical patents. Of the fifteen great medical milestones recently identified by the British Medical Journal – only two were patented or could be attributed to the “incentive” that patents supposedly provide. Numerous technical studies by economists of the effect of stronger patents on innovation have failed to find any consistent increase. Put it plainly: while the social gains from abolishing patents on drugs are obvious and computable, the losses are dubious and, on the basis of empirical evidence, probably nil.

Pharmaceutical patents and the resulting monopolies have many other corrosive effects, over and above raising the prices of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spend far more money promoting their products than on R&D. Some of the giants spend as much as four times on marketing as they do on research and development. How do these companies market their products? Most of the money goes to “scientifically convincing” the medical profession to prescribe patented products. How? Well, for example, by inviting doctors and their families to week-long conferences in exclusive resorts, where two hours are for a marketing presentation (the “medical symposium”) and the rest for (all-included) leisure. A spectacular – but hardly unique – example of the level of corruption is the conviction of Pfizer for encouraging doctors to bill the government for drugs they were provided for free. These practices not only raise the cost of drugs, but corrode trust in the medical profession.

He also goes on to suggest some other ways to lower the costs of “drug development,” as well. There’s probably not much new in there if you’ve read his book, but it’s a good, straightforward description of the problem with pharma patents. While the writing is a bit flippant, if you go through the related chapter in Levine’s book, and then start reading some of the other source material and studies, it’s all backed up quite strongly. There’s almost no evidence that patents do anything to promote more drug discovery — and plenty to suggest it makes medicines significantly more expensive. Ditching pharma patents would make a much more efficient market in drugs that would end up saving a lot of lives.

Filed Under: david levine, healthcare, patents, reform

Around The Globe, Entertainment Industry Pisses Off Fans Promoting Content

Culture

from the spin-the-globe dept

You would think that the various entertainment industry rights organizations around the world would recognize how badly attacking consumers has failed and wouldn’t continue to do it in every other country, but apparently common sense travels a lot slower than unauthorized content these days. Roni Evron alerts us to how a bunch of Israeli YouTube users are pissed off after rights holder Unicell convinced YouTube to pull down a bunch of content and close user accounts, even for content that just isn’t available anywhere else:

One of the more prominent Israeli users of YouTube is 40-year-old Guy, who has been operating his own homepage there for three years. Guy says that he spends about two hours every day uploading content. He focuses on old archival material: Israeli music which is now considered classic.

“I do it out of love and I have no commercial interests,” he says. “The idea behind this is ideological, romantic, to expose older cultural material, to make it accessible to as many people as possible. In most cases it is not readily available anywhere else.”

For example, he has uploaded the contents of singer-songwriter Matti Caspi’s first album from 1974, and material from the “Siba L’mesiba” (“Excuse for a Party”) television program, which aired on the Channel One from 1984-1990.

Most of the responses he gets, according to Guy, are from former Israelis who live abroad; they are enthusiastic and ask him to add more material.

He admits that he is not current on copyright law, but believes removal of the content from the Internet is proof of narrow-mindedness.

“Perhaps exposure to this material in fact increases demand,” he says. “YouTube is no substitute for purchasing music in higher quality formats; it simply provokes nostalgia. This work is a community service.”

You have to wonder if the recent Israeli ruling that found that the rights of users should be respected, and that copyright claims should only be dealt with if they were “especially severe, wrongs committed in aggravated circumstances,” will come into play in these sorts of situations.

Filed Under: copyright, israel, videos
Companies: google, youtube

Google: Flipping Off The Newspapers

Too Much Free Time

from the happy-now,-bitches? dept

We’ve been joking that the latest moves from Google designed to “help” the newspaper industry have been anything but helpful. Instead, they seem more designed to make newspapers irrelevant faster, while making it look like they’re helping. It’s a cynical view to be sure. And, while I’m not a huge fan of the whole “Fake Famous CEO” meme that’s been hot since Dan Lyons created the Fake Steve Jobs, Shane Richmond has posted an amusing email to newspaper folks sent from a “Fake Eric Schmidt” that’s too good not to share:

MESSAGE FOR THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY

Listen assholes, all we ever hear from you is whining and we’re getting sick of it: “Waaah! Google’s killing our business! Waaah! Google sends us traffic we can’t monetise! Waaah! All our readers are going elswhere!”

—- you. Seriously, —- you. You’re a sorry-assed bunch of internet-misunderstanding ————- and I’m getting tired of waiting for you to die.

So we’ve launched a new product that we think will help. It’s called Google Fast Flip.

First, let me explain the name because this email is going to Rupert Murdoch who I think is a Brit or something and won’t get the joke.

When you give someone the finger in America, you’re “flipping them off”. Since this new section is essentially us giving the news industry the finger, I wanted a name that reflected that. We were going to calling the site “flipping the news” but we thought that was too obvious. We toyed with “flipper” for a while but we’ve settled on “fast flip”. It still makes me chuckle every time I say it.

Anyway, you ink-stained ——- whine on and on about how the internet doesn’t provide “serendipity”. I had to look it up (yeah, I Googled it, ————-, see what the internet can do for you?) and it seems that what it means, in a newspaper sense, is that sometimes you turn over the page and the next section doesn’t suck.

Most of the time, of course, the next section does suck. But people forget that. It’s like when you think of someone and then they call you. You never think about all the times that you thought of them and they didn’t call you. Serendipity makes newspaper readers forget that most of the time the next section does suck.

Somehow you goons have based an entire business on making people pay for —- they don’t want. Well done. Our business model is based on building the best ——- search engine on the planet so that people get what they do want. And you morons wonder why our business is booming and yours is going to hell.

Well we’ve replicated serendipity for you. Fast Flip jams together a bunch of articles based on a secret algorithm we’ve developed. Ok, ok, it’s random but that’s serendipity right?

And here’s the part you ——— will love: we’ll share the revenue with you. Of course the ads will be ours, not yours. Oh, and Fast Flip shows enough of the article that readers will decide not to click through and read your pages at all.

But you’ll thank us for it because we’ve saved your business model. Happy now bitches?

Filed Under: fake eric schmidt, fast flip, newspapers
Companies: google

Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design

Overhype

from the did-I-miss-something dept

I’m trying to understand where the legal issue is here, but a “freelance artist” and alumnus of NYU is apparently suing the school because it used the bobcat mascot she designed. But here’s the thing: she designed it while she was employed by the school’s athletic director. In this case, she was just an equipment room clerk, but the associate director (a superior) asked her to create the mascot. And then the school used it. How is that possibly a copyright violation? She was employed by the school. Her boss asked her to do some work for the school. She did it. I’m having trouble understanding where there’s a copyright violation.

Filed Under: copyright, logo, nyu, work for hire