7 reasons why [I think] it is a bad idea to sync Twitter with Facebook (and the other way around)

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: December 4, 2011

In my opinion it is a bad idea for bands and artists (and everyone else) to sync Twitter and Facebook. Here´s why:

1. Lifespan

The lifespan of a tweet is much shorter than a status update on Facebook. A status update on Facebook will potentially draw attention for days, while the lifespan of a tweet seem to be for about 1-4 hours. People have actually done research on this and that shows that tweeting about 1-4 times per day have the most effect, while 0,5 Facebook status updates per day is most effective. It is however a potentially weak link to get too attached to these numbers, especially when you are an emerging artist. I therefore suggest you experiment to find out what works best for you. There´s however no doubt in my mind that while one may post several posts on Twitter, one should be much more selective on Facebook. Also as pointed out by social media marketing analysts Sysomos “an active Facebook wall doesn´t necessarily imply a popular page”.

I stole this picture from a blogpost suggesting it is a good idea to sync your Facebook updates with your Twitter feed. Ironic.

2. Fans vs. followers

Back in the days you also had friends on Twitter, but this soon changed to followers. On Facebook you have friends, or fans that “like” your music. Friending someone on Facebook carries a deeper social connection than a following on Twitter. Rhetorically speaking one may therefore argue that your followers on twitter are interested in the message you communicate in each tweet, while your fans on Facebook will be more interested in the overall relationship with you as an artist.

3. Speed

Let me teach you some Gurak: How cyberliterate you are, is depending on how well you master the following action terms: speed, reach, anonymity and interactivity. “Speed” is how fast the message spreads on the Internet, while “reach” is the catchment, or the impact of the message (how many it reaches). Anonymity might be less applicable today compared to some years ago (today everybody actually knows you´re a dog), but online behavior will to some extent still be dependent on the degree of anonymity behind your profile (nickname vs. personal profile or even online vs. offline). On this matter interactivity will be the ability your fans have to talk back or interact with you. As far as speed and social media goes, it is important to be aware of the fact that tweets spread way faster compared to Facebook updates. A good example is how much faster news is being spread through Twitter during natural disasters compared to other social media platforms, or even news channels such as Reuters, CNN etc. Twitter might therefore be a good tool for more “time-sensitive” material, while Facebook can be good for updates less depending on its timing.

4. Fans or foes

It is easier to keep a distance to fans on Twitter. This means that the relation you build on Twitter will be less demanding compared to Facebook, which will most likely require far more personal presence and exclusivity (not necessarily as in updates (see pt. 1), but as in the quality of each update (see pt. 2)). When it comes to social media it is very important to understand the negative effect one may generate if one looses the ability to follow up on expected activity. This has to be considered before creating any social media profile. The last thing you want to do is disappoint fans (also check out this write-up I did on social media as CRM).

5. Timing

Market research shows that there are differences on when updates on Twitter and Facebook has the most effect. Some say tweets has the most effect in the afternoon, while weekends (around noon) is best for Facebook sharing. It would however make no academic or analytical sense to believe this also would be the case for you. I therefore suggest you experiment to find your own best practice. My point here is nonetheless that the best time for a tweet is not necessarily the best time for a Facebook update (also hence pt. 1).

6. The 140 characters hazzle

Any update on twitter is limited to 140 characters while there´s really no limits on posting a Facebook update (Twitter remediates the SMS that also has a limit of 140 characters in the US – not in Europe where it is most common to have a limit of 160 characters per message). On Twitter you have to keep it short and sweet (which is an art form in itself), while on Facebook you can be more thorough in your writing. A shortened text with a fb.me link on Twitter is really not cool (this is my opinion, but I don´t think I´m all alone here).

7. Twitter rhetoric’s on Facebook

The more you understand Twitter as a communication tool, the more effective it will also become as a marketing tool. In contrast to Facebook, Twitter has for instance its own rhetoric’s and the limitation of 140 characters draws for a more frequent use of abbreviations. #Hashtags works best on Twitter – not Facebook and the @ works different (technically) on each platform. Therefore get into how things work on each platform and exploit it!

Also check out this article I did on online ethos on Twitter (in Norwegian).

Posted in General, music | Tagged Facebook, marketing, music, social media, twitter | 2 Comments

Life is busy. Life is good.

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: October 22, 2011

A little update:

Ever since I finished my master thesis I have been extremely busy at Universal Music Denmark. That´s why things have been rather quiet here on this website. I truly love my work and line of expertise, and I am looking very much forward to what the future will bring (there´s more news coming very soon). At Universal I have been busy preparing the Universal Music repertoire for the DK launch of Spotify as well as maintaining the relationship with other key accounts such as WiMP and TDC Play. Universal Music Denmark has also launched Digster – a service offering editorial playlists for Danish users of Spotify, WiMP and TDC Play.

I actually had Digster as a case study when writing my master thesis on “playlist marketing in the new music economy”. Last month I had the pleasure of talking about Digster as well as my master thesis to music management students at The Rhythmic Music Conservatory in Copenhagen. Here´s the presentation i made for this talk. The master thesis is actually confidential, so this is the furthers you will get in regards to getting your hands on my master thesis (the presentation gives an introduction to Digster as a service as well as considerations in regards to theory and the methodology when working on the master thesis):

Master thesis thesis presentasjon September 2011

View more presentations from Arnbjørn Joar Styrkor Marklund

Posted in music | Tagged Digster, master thesis, Spotify, TDC Play, wimp | Leave a comment

Musikselskaber 2010

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: June 1, 2011

Picture from ifpi.dk

I have a quote in regards to music streaming services in a new report released by IFPI Denmark June 1, 2011. The report is in Danish and can be downloaded here.

Click here to visit the IFPI website and read what they are saying about their own report.

The report is pointing out the fact that Denmark is (still) lagging behind when it comes to commonly used as well as widely available music streaming services.

Posted in music | Tagged media, Spotify, streaming, wimp | 2 Comments

Record labels as value adding content providers

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: April 25, 2011

When in New York last week I had an interesting lunch conversation with an acquaintance that works with online marketing within a totally different business than the music industry. A topic that came up was the existence of record labels (as we know them). One of many questions was why they still exist and if they even have a basis for existence in the new music economy? One argument for why record labels should cease to exist was in relation to how the Internet (now) provides an efficient means of music distribution where a major label investment is not necessary to facilitate the distribution (David, M. 2010: 136).

Photo: CC: Shutrbug72 / Flickr

I definitely agree on the fact that the Internet provides an efficient means of music distribution. I also agree on the fact that a lot of bands and artists don’t need to sign with a record label to build a career. I do however still think that record labels has an important role to play in the new music economy. This new role does however not (only) involve hiring a concert booker and implement a 360 deal to their business plan as well as talking about themselves as “music companies” rather than “record labels”. In my opinion the most important role of traditional record labels today is the role of “value adding content providers”. Here’s why:

Wikström (2009) argues that the characteristics of the new music economy (high connectivity and little control, music provided as a service and increased amateur creativity) are driven by the digital media technologies (p. 85). These main characteristics are also highlighted in the “Opbrud” report created by the Danish consulting agency Kontrabande (2011). In this report Kontrabande (2011) points out that the development of the digital market for the media industries (film, tv, books, music, games, journalism) is characterized by little control due to fragmentation (unbundling) and individualization of traditional media content, as well as increased amateur creativity and social relevance (sharing within communities). The report also highlights the demand for trustworthy filtering of content. This due to all amateur creativity and information overload for many users (p. 4). Wikström (2009) refers to Negus (1992) when he elaborates on the fact that “the music industry is about ‘developing musical content and personalities’ and to be able to license the use of that content and those personalities to consumers (…)” (p. 17). An important point on user-generated content made by Clay Shirky (2008) is that “much of what gets posted on any given day is in the public but not for the public” (p. 90). The same goes for musical content. As already pointed out the Internet provides an efficient means of music distribution and a major label investment is not necessary to facilitate such distribution (David, M. 2010: 136). However, more music are produced and available online than what actually reach the consumer. Wikström (2009) refers to Hirsch (1970) and theory on “preselection systems” when describing characteristics of the copyright industries’ marketing challenges. The point is that music listeners only experience a fraction of new music released. What people end up listening to (as in what ends up becoming popular) is what passes trough the gatekeepers filtering system (p. 22). The music consumers’ now need to easily be able to navigate all the music in the Cloud (Wikström, P. 2009: 175).

It’s no secret that the music industry has been and still is hit driven. Industry success on a major label level is most often measured by looking at the music charts (who’s number one). Traditionally what has reached the top of the charts and the audience is what music labels have invested a lot of money in (TV-advertising etc). However the increase in music production and songs available online has made it necessary for the music labels to pay for exposure in more outlets in order to keep the audience on a constant level. And as we know, the decrease in CD sales has lead to an additional reduction in income. This way it is without doubt that the traditional way of music marketing and receiving attention for certain artists and musical projects will have a negative impact on profitability. It is therefore crucial for the music companies to lower investments, spend the marketing money more wisely and rely on music fans “to create a good buzz”. (Wikström, P. 2009: 91-92)

But as the music companies now has to rely on fans to create a good buzz and with an increasing demand for trustworthy filtering of content, there’s no doubt in my mind that record labels should play their role as “content providers” more serious. As the music industry is about ‘developing musical content and personalities’ as well as making sure that the musical content and those personalities reach consumers, it is highly important that all the music produced are of high quality and that it stands out of the mass creation of “amateur” content. A traditional music label should already have the staff to make sure this happens. I am certain this sounds a bit obvious, but every teenager during the 1990s probably remembers some of the disappointment they sometimes experienced after purchasing an album based on a radio hit. The hit single was good, but the rest of the album wasn’t. In the new music economy consumers no longer have to deal with this type of problems. Today music fans are able to buy access to “all the music in the world” through streaming services such as Spotify, WiMP and Rdio etc. This means that music consumption and eventually revenue streams will be based on what people actually listen to and not on the amount of albums and singles bought in record stores. This speaks out for the importance for record labels to make sure that all the content they represent are of high quality (the filter role of a gatekeeper). Hits are of course still important, but all the music made public by the music company is highly significant. In the new music economy, music companies simply achieve market share based on how much of their entire catalogue music consumers listen to. People still tend to listen to the most popular artists, and that will never change, but it has never been more important to ensure high quality of the entire catalogue. As more music is being produced than ever before (I have been talking about “cultural inflation” for about five years now) and easily distributed online, the music companies mainly needs to make sure that what they release is “better than the rest of what is out there”. The record labels therefore needs to make sure all of their music available in the Cloud is not just in the public, but also for the public. Simply put: Anyone can distribute music online. Not everyone can be on a label. In a world of cultural inflation, this is part of how the filtering of musical content might work.

In an interview with the Los Angeles based music blog Rollo & Grady, Seth Godin talks about the music industry in relation to his book “Tribes” (2008): “(…) music labels used to be in the business of grabbing shelf space, on the radio and in the record store. Now, the music industry needs to realign and be in the business of finding and connecting and leading groups of people who want to follow a musician and connect with the other people who want to do the same” (Rollo & Grady, 2009). The way I see it music companies should be about building strong brands and benefit from the artist career as a whole. The best way to build strong brands is definitely by making sure all the music released is of high quality (nobody wants to follow a crappy musician as well as nobody wants to be a crappy musician). This speaks out for the importance of highly skilled A&R people at record labels that not just search for the next number one hit. Today the artist and repertoire employee also needs the ability to lead and guide artists throughout their whole career. Marketing personnel at record labels has for a long time been the strongest argument why someone should sign with record labels. They still are. The marketing power of a record label might be crucial in order to break upcoming acts. However, as the return on investment is harder to reach the more money you spend on exposure in more outlets, the more important it is to make long strategic planning instead of plugging the next big hit or sensational story while paying large sums for exposure in tons of outlets music consumer doesn’t really care about (when was the last time you really noticed and acted upon an online advertisement?). It’s the entire content as a collection that is the most important asset at records labels. The focus therefore needs to be more on all content rather than just hits. At the same time it is crucial to spend marketing money more wisely as well as making sure the fans gets something besides a product wrapped together as a basic album. Today everyone can get their music on iTunes, but not everyone can create something special for their fans – something out of the ordinary. If you want people to recommend your music to others, make sure it is recommendable. The basic rule of content providers is simply that the service is available at little or no cost, to promote their primary business. Content providers are also referred to as “value added services” which on a conceptual level should add value to the standard service offering. In this case the standard service offering is the artist career as a whole, while the music (as in recorded content) of the artist is used to promote the entire business (although it is of course still possible to make money by selling recorded content).

A survey recently conducted by ReverbNation shows that 3 out of 4 unsigned artists still want a label deal (Digital Music News 2011). This is also the case with most artists I know, and for the most part this is because 1) artists wants to get acknowledged for their music and 2) they really want to find a home for their music. If an artist really looks up to another artist, he/she/they would in some cases kill to be on the same label or “discovered” by the same A&R as their idols. It is therefore important not to let artists down. After all, they provide the content providers with the actual content and that way function as the most important stakeholder for music companies – Next to the music fans of course. Without fans, music is dead and without good music there will be no fans. That’s why it is crucial to give fans something extra.

As any other stakeholder, such as a music journalist, or digital distributor, I would however love to know that whenever music labels release music, it is of high quality, and I would love it if I just knew it instead of having them convince me. I am however not saying that everyone should be on a label to be great (recent history has definitely proved that that’s not how it works). What I am saying is simply that if record labels are supposed to have a reason for existence, it is first and foremost to become a filter of mass production (instead of becoming the mass production). In other words record labels needs to be providers of great musical content (and then some) where they add value to the standard service offering. One thing is the marketing expertise; another thing is the ability to continuously release great musical content on a market where the consumer (and not the marketer) has most of the power and where amateur content strive for the same attention as “music with a marketing budget”.

Bibliography

David, M. (2010) Peer to Peer and the Music Industry – The Criminalization of Sharing (First edition). London: Sage
Digital Music News (2011). Survey: 3 Out of 4 Unsigned Artists Still Want a Label Deal. Digital Music News (28.03.2010) Online: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032511unsigned [Accessed 03.04.2011]
Godin, S. (2008). Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us, London: Piatkus
Kontrabande (2011). Opbrud – Strømninger og bevægelser i markederne for film, tv, bøger, musik, spil og journalistic 2011. Kontrabande (March 2011).
Rollo & Grady (2009). Rollo & Grady Interview // Seth Godin (February 5, 2009). Located: http://www.rollogrady.com/rollo-grady-interview-seth-godin/ [Accessed 20.12.2010]
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody – How Change Happens When People Come Together, London: Penguin Books
Wikström, P. (2009) The Music Industry: Digital Media And Society Series. Cambridge: Polity Press

Posted in music | Tagged content providers, future of music, new music economy, Spotify, streaming, the cloud, value adding, wimp | 4 Comments

The CD is not dead…

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: March 23, 2011

…Not yet. What is dead is the economy of the CD (also pointed out by Tom Silverman, founder of the New Music Seminar)

In many territories, the CD is doing quite okay and the CD will of course not die before no one manufactures it and/or buys/sells it. It is also important to keep in mind that the CD probably will have a longer life span within certain market segments. Especially amongst the connoisseurs of classical music it is natural to assume the CD will be valued for a longer and more considerable amount of time compared to the “top-40 radio segment” (this is an argument based on personal marketing experience within both market segments).

Another interesting fact is that Norwegian niche labels such as NORCD and Rune Grammofon has increased revenues from the sales of physical products in 2010.

It is however no doubt in my mind that the economy of recorded music consumption is moving towards the cloud (just to make sure you follow: the Internet is the cloud, the cloud is the Internet).

For many years the music industry has looked at the many online music services as “free” promotion tools with “the single purpose” of selling CDs (the sale of units). In the new music economy this has changed. With music streaming services, not only will digital music distribution outrun sales of physical music formats, online music consumption is also able to satisfy the demands of many music fans (Also read Wikström, P. 2009: 91). You can no longer rely on sales of CDs when measuring the success of your business (or artist career for that matter). This is why it is right to say that the economy of the CD is dead.

But as long as there’s a demand for Compact Discs, CDs will be manufactured and sold. And (for some strange reason) I think the CD will be put on life support a bit longer than it might look like. It is simply impossible to rule out the fact that certain people might want to buy a CD if the product is tempting enough, at least in the immediate future (important rule of the thumb: the majority has never been everyone). I have already used classical music as an example of a market segment that might appreciate the CD format a bit longer compared to other segments, as well as pointed out the fact that certain niche labels are experiencing an increase in revenues from sales of physical formats. It is also worth mentioning that certain niche music zines and genre-based magazines ask for physical formats when doing album reviews (makes it possible to argue that physical formats still have a promotion value). And I guess it would be sort of naïve to rule out the possibility of certain artists wanting to make the(ir) art tangible. I know people who buys vinyl just to hang it on the wall (it is of course limited how many vinyl records you would want hanging around), but this could also easily be nicely wrapped limited edition CD box sets (although I personally think the vinyl will outlive the CD), or other imaginable product bundles.

A good example of a dead music format serving as an art product is this release from 2008 by the Washington DC based band The Cassettes. The package includes one limited edition numbered cassette (!!!), one download card (would be kind of weird to expect people to have cassette players in 2008), one collectible car and one collectible horse:

In my opinion this is a “school example” of great packaging and maybe an even greater marketing idea, but it sure the hell didn’t make the band rich. That doesn’t mean it was a bad idea, as this is the kind of physical product worth buying (it’s MOMA material goddammit).

It is however impossible to ignore the fact that the economy of music consumption and distribution is changing. Recent statement (January 2011) made by Petter Singsaas, Managing Director of Universal Music Norway, claiming the CD will be dead in 5 years, clearly put things in perspective when it comes to where the music industry is heading. It might take more than 5 years for the CD to disappear (and it might take less), but the expected time frame is kind of unimportant as long as the music industry acknowledges that the CD is worth less compared to music in the cloud.

Posted in music | Tagged cassette, CD, future of music, music in the cloud, online distribution, streaming, the cassettes, the cloud, vinyl | 4 Comments

Music streaming services, taste communities and the marketing of access.

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: March 13, 2011

The success of streaming services such as Spotify in Sweden and Norway, as well as WiMP in Norway and the attention of Mog and Rdio etc in the USA, proves that music streaming services has a great potential to liberate music consumption, as well as drive traffic from illegal music sites. Economically this is an important shift in music consumption habits and many market analysts are arguing that music-streaming services may be the record industry’s economic salvation in a downhill market situation. Streaming services therefore seem to be the most obvious place for the music industry to now reach its audience. A major challenge is however that one cannot take a product that sells for dollars and replace it with one that “sells” for cents and then expect the industry to remain healthy. At least not if the overall marketing and operations strategy remains the same. This way it is possible to argue that future expenses needs to be lower in order to realize the return on investment.

Illustraion photo: Arnbjørn Marklund

So as a one time stream of an album generate less income compared to a sale of the same album on a CD (or download for that matter), the music industry is facing some important challenges when it comes to gaining considerable profit from music streaming. As the business of music is transforming from an industry driven to a fan driven culture, it is important to build a community of fans and to have these music fans engage in an economic relationship in order to consume music. As far as traditional music consumption goes, this means that the strategic operations are changing from being all about selling units until obtaining as many streams as possible for every artist and music track represented by the company. This is significant in order to increase royalty payments. As a bonus, music streaming also has the potential to boost the popularity of artists represented by the music company. The more popular an artist becomes, the more money one may also expect to earn from licensing the artist’s songs to a film or video game, and the more income you may also earn from the sales of merchandise and/or sponsorship agreements.

But as it is becoming more and more important for consumers to have access to the specific content rather than actually own it, it is a bit more challenging for the music industry to position themselves towards the consumer. The amount of money the consumer spends on music streaming is not necessarily out of loyalty to an artist or a music company. It is because the consumer has access to millions of tracks. One may actually argue that the liberation of music consumption in a world of access is about individual music discovery and social sharing within taste communities. The consumers are still music fans, and might therefore have several favorite artists they prefer listening to, but as the consumers already have access to everything, it is no longer about having ownership of the “right” content. For the music industry it is therefore crucial to make sure the consumer discover, listen to, enjoy – and therefore “come back to” the right content. This is how music fans enter into an economic relationship in order to consume (more) music. Access to everything is quite simply more important than ownership of something, and future marketing of music might just be about filtering relevant content for music fans.

Music companies therefore need to be on the forefront of these new market developments in order to future prosper. The following months I will research further on this subject as I finish up my master thesis at the IT-University / CBS here in Copenhagen. I will keep you guys updated as much as I can. My main goal is to to explore how the music industry might reach the music consumers and gain profitable market share through the marketing of music streams, as well as how one may build and maintain a community of music fans in a world of access.

Posted in music | Tagged marketing, mog, music, music community, rdio, Spotify, streaming, wimp | Leave a comment

Your band needs a website, goddammit!

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: March 3, 2011

I am constantly telling bands and artists (as well as other people in the music industry) how important it is to have a website and not just a myspace profile or whatever social media profile or blogspot blog (the first one is obviously starting to sink in these days). Sure, you may integrate your blog on your homepage, but you need a place that is yours and yours only – a place that reflects your personality (or band image). You need a place that people come back to and also a place for people to collect the information they search for. This could be journalists looking to read your bio or download high res pictures for print media. It could also be venue bookers looking to get in touch with your agent, or simply fans wanting to listen to (and buy) your music and get the latest updates. It is therefore a good idea to have (and maintain) your own webstore. Last, but not least your website should also promote and encourage fans to sign up to a newsletter. All of your 4567 likes on Facebook is great, but sometimes you need to be able to hit them up on an even more personal level. An e-mail sign up requires more commitment than a “like” on Facebook. The results of succesfull e-mail marketing will therefore be more effective than just updating the status on your Facebook page (hell, you can do both!).

To build and send out newsletters you can use services such as MailChimp, Your mailinglist provider or (probably the best alternative) FanBridge. But unless you are in the need of a die hard professional e-mail service (you probably are if you have more than, eh – let’s say 10.000 fans – just to set an example), a website platform such as Bandzoogle handles all of your above mentioned needs (more on Bandzoogle and some other alternatives later).

Photo: Flickr / m-nicolson

Bands and artists had websites back in 1994 and they still do. That’s why you need one. You’re not going to stay on Myspace forever, and you can’t be sure how long you are going to stay on whatever next big thing. Make your own place and make it look damn professional. And don’t worry. You don’t need to be a webdesigner!

Here’s a list of website platforms that helps you create killer websites with no coding experience (let’s forget about wordpress for a moment, even though that is pretty rad too):

Bandzoogle

This is my favorite or at least it is the service I am most familiar with. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the best service around these days. I did however choose Bandzoogle when creating the present website for Stina Stjern (yes, she’s my wife).

I can definitely recommend Bandzoogle to other bands and artists. Sure, an online service can ALWAYS become better. But when I was looking for a killer web-platform to help create an artist website with a great music player (that works on tablets etc) and an easy to use webshop, I simply found Bandzoogle to be the best alternative. It also helped that Brenden Mulligan (the guy behind Artistdata) recommended Bandzoogle in this blog post. The support team were also quick in their responses and answered all my questions quite convincingly both on e-mail and on twitter (how to add value to your company using twitter? well, reply back to people asking questions!). I was also really satisfied with how Bandzoogle easily synced with blogspot (blog updates) as well as (speaking of) Artistdata (show calendar). In addition the shop function is really good and easy to set up (and use), and their mailing list service is well integrated and easy to set up. Bandzoogle has also been around for quite some time and that made me feel quite confident that I wasn’t spending money on a start up that might go bankrupt as soon as they received my payment.

Bandzoogle costs between $9.95 and $19.95 pr. month based on what type of subscription you need.

You can visit the page I created for Stina Stjern here.

Screenshot of stinastjern.com

Here’s a list of other services that also might help you create killer websites:

get-ctr

get-ctrl is an easy to use tool for you to build and update your own website with all the stuff you need. It’s got news, gigs, biography, media players, digital store and a fan base management system which includes email campaigns (source: http://www.get-ctrl.com/faq.htm).

In other words: get-ctrl does pretty much what Bandzoogle does. get-ctrl is however free, but they do commission on sales made through your webshop as well as they charge for certain add ons.

I chose Bandzoogle over get-ctrl because Bandzoogle was (and still is) more developed (speak out if you disagree). At the same time a premium subscription with Bandzoogle made it possible to customize the website a bit more (at least in November 2010, which was when I signed up). With get-ctrl I felt I was signing up for an artist profile rather than a website service (with all band pages looking too much like each other). Today it does however seem like get-ctrl is a really good alternative to Bandzoogle (or any other website platform). I am just a bit curious to see how they will make money only monetizing on add ons and shop commision.

Especially the fact that get-ctrl makes money on add ons probably means that there will be several premium features that you will need to pay for in order to use. I felt more secure signing up for everything (what you see is what you get) instead of a free limited service. I also like the fact that Bandzoogle’s not commissioning on sales. But hey, this is my reflections on why I went for one thing over another. This doesn’t necessarily mean get-ctrl is a bad idea (and it sure is starting to look damn sexy).

Sayvee

Sayvee is “a simple way for artists to build a killer website”. Again, what they do is pretty much the same as the above mentioned services. The pricing is $14.99 US per month after a free 30 day free trial including hosting, 5GB space, unlimited mailing list members, and all features. You can get your own “.com” address for $10 US / year with up to 50 email addresses (source: http://sayvee.com/features).

Check out Sayvee here.

[Edit March 12, 2011: Bandzoogle announced their acquisition of Sayvee on March 11. Read more here.]

guguchu

Guguchu might also be an alternative worth checking out, although it seems to be a bit different from the above mentioned website platforms. I am really not that familiar with it (kind of worth mentioning), but from looking at their website it seems a bit more like a marketing platform rather than a website platform (please correct me if I am wrong).

According to their own website Guguchu is a one-stop direct-to-fan platform that allows you to set up a fully customizable and professionally looking band page (doesn’t say if it is on your own domain). They also have ticketing solution, newsletter, media kit and venue database (kind of makes this service a bit more sonicbids-ish) etc. Sign-up is free, but Guguchu keeps a flat 15% of music and ticket sales and additional Paypal fees apply. (source: guguchu.com)

The way I see it, at least bands in Europe and Scandinavia wouldn’t need a ticketing service based in the US. If going for a free alternative when it comes to creating your own website (or band page), I would definitely go for get-ctrl instead of this one. But again, it’s all up to you and your website needs (You already know which one I use).

Nimbit

Like Guguchu, Nimbit market themselves as a one-stop direct-to-fan platform or as service that does “direct-to-fan marketing, sales and distribution all in one place”, as they put it on their website. This means that their focus is more on direct to fan sales rather than being an awesome website platform. However, they do have a feature making it possible to create a complete website for your band including a professional storefront, gig calendar, blog, and more (last time I checked this was a wordpress feature).

But in my opinion Nimbit is more a service for artists on the look-out for ways to sell music online as well as distribute their music to iTunes, Amazon, eMusic and Rhapsody. If your digital distribution is set up somewhere else, you might as well use another service to build your website.

Learn more about Nimbit here.

Posted in music | Tagged bandzoogle, fan bridge, get-ctrl, guguchu, mailchimp, nimbit, sayvee, wordpress, your mailinglist provider | Leave a comment

Case study: Social media as CRM

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: January 29, 2011

With the Norwegian artist Åge Aleksandersen’s Facebook usage as a case study, this paper discuss how artists may use social media in order to build healthy relationships with fans, as well as improving their business intelligence through strategic usage of social media as eCRM (electronic Customer Relationship Management). My knowledge of how Åge Aleksandersen use Facebook to communicate with fans has been gained through two in depth interviews: one with Åge Alkesandersen and one with a fan in regards to a specific episode where a talk back incident lead to an act of customer relation. To understand the amount of inbound versus outbound communication on Åge Aleksandersen’s Facebook page, I have also observed and analyzed how fans actually use the page and how they respond to Åge Aleksandersen’s status updates. My main argument is that Facebook may function as a proficient eCRM tool as long as the marketer knows how to analyze and use the statistics provided by the social network service. This as fans provides great amounts of data when liking the page.

Åge Aleksandersen photo: www.levvalivet.no

My analysis gives a very good example of how strategic usage of social media makes it possible to communicate with fans in real time based on who they are and where they are located. This way it illustrates how people show particular interest based on their level of closeness to the specific communication. Looking at concert pictures is more interesting if you were at the actual concert. At the same time it will be way more relevant to receive invites to concerts located either nearby to where you live or to where you might be heading. Taking statistics provided by Facebook serious might therefore improve your business intelligence, and help build strong relationships with fans.

One of the greatest advantages by looking at Facebook as eCRM, is the fact that fans already served as data providers when signing up. By using traditional tools such as email opt in forms; the value of the data given by the fan depends on the total amount of data provided. Optional fields are very often skipped when signing up, yet optional fields are necessary in order to encourage people to register (best practice in email marketing is that it needs to be few mandatory sign up fields in order to receive the most registrants). When using social media as eCRM, there is no such thing as optional fields. The only way to “register” is to click the “like” button. Yet the value of the data provided by liking an artist page on Facebook is comparable to filling out personal details such as gender, age and nationality.

It is also important to underline how the reduction of social distance may generate great value for artists. A community of pleased fans simply has the potential of leading to an economic engagement between the fan and the artist. A combination of social media strategy and traditional advertising might therefore be a very powerful tool. First off all it is easier to encourage fans to like a Facebook page in newspaper advertisements and TV commercials, compared to telling them to sign up to a newsletter. Second by doing this, your advertisement will not only promote sales of the actual product, it will promote the community and that way generate a great deal of value as more fans contribute as data providers by liking the page.

Artists both should and will communicate to their fans based on who they are (as artists) and who their fans are. That way, what works for one artist, might not necessarily work for another artist. One thing is how your fans will act through the way you handle fan communication on social media platforms. Another thing is how fans expect you, as an artist, to handle their requests based on other artists social media usage. On this matter it is not only important to understand social media as a communication platform. It is also important to value user generated customer service. You should not only encourage fans to communicate and interact with you as an artist, but you should very well encourage them to interact with each other. However, as my analysis shows it is important to understand that your community would require frequent updates in order to grow. A well thought out strategy and activity plan will therefore help grow your fan base. And as fans provide data material the minute they become members of the community, the increased number of likes will also improve your business intelligence. This way you will not only build relationships with even more fans. With the ability to analyze data provided by your fans, you will also become a smarter artist.

Download the entire case study for free here (39 pages in English)

Posted in music | Tagged crm, customer relations, Facebook, social media, åge aleksandersen | 2 Comments

Musikere SKAL tjene penger på musikken

By Arnbjørn Marklund | Published: January 26, 2011

Så har det skjedd (beklager norskheten, men når jeg er så engasjert som nå funker det verken på dansk eller engelsk)…[edit: artikkel er nå endret - min perspektivering ble skrevet mens opprinnelig artikkel stadig var online.] Jeg har blitt misforstått i media, eller rettere sagt: jeg har blitt fremstilt fullstendig feil i media. Det til tross for at jeg både har gjennomsett og godkjent alle mine sitater. Med andre ord står jeg inne for alle mine sitater i anførselstegn. Det er historien rundt som fremstår som regelrett pølsevev.

Og hva snakker jeg om? [edit: Artikkel som først ble publisert er lagt ut som screenshot lenger ned]

Her er link til aktuell [edit: nå endret] artikkel i Politiken

[edit: 26. januar, 2011 kl. 07.53 har jeg sendt mail til journalist og bedt om at vinkling ut over direkte sitater rettes til]

[edit: 26. januar, 2011 kl 09.00 er overskriften på artikkelen endret fra "Digital spåmand: Musikere skal ikke tjene penge på musikken" til "Digital spåmand: Musikere skal ikke kun tjene penge på musikken"]

[edit: 26. januar, 2011 (ca) kl 13.20 Innhold i artikkel endret på bakgrunn av oppklarende snakk med journalist.]

Jeg synes ikke det er nødvendig å forklare så utrolig mye (jeg har mildt sagt vært litt fortvilet over hvordan min ekspertise blir fremstilt i denne artikkelen, men har samtidig møtt utrolig mye forståelse for at overskift og innhold ikke er i samsvar med mine sitater. Jeg velger derfor å tro at de fleste forstår at dette er litt mer humbug enn sannhet). La meg imidlertid forklare hovedessensen i hva som er feil:

Digital spåmand

La meg starte med å takke for tittelen. Min Twitter-konto har tikket inn med forslag om oppgradering av både CV og visittkort. Det skal imidlertid understrekes at jeg ikke har noe til overs for spådommer (jeg er en tilhenger av sannhet). Under intervjuet spør journalist meg om noe som har med fremtiden å gjøre. I denne forbindelse POENGTERER jeg at ett av mine største prinsipper faktisk er å IKKE uttale meg om fremtiden, men at man selvfølgelig kan snakke ut ifra de tendenser man ser i markedet i dag. Jeg håper derfor virkelig det er desken (altså, en eller annen forfjamset redaksjonssekretær) som har hatt livlig fantasi i denne sammenhengen, for selv om mange har uttalt at det er en utrolig kul tittel så er jeg altså ingen digital spåmand (det er det INGEN som er).

Photo: Flickr / islandguy808

Så over til neste elendighet:

Musikere skal ikke tjene penger på musikken.

Jeg har selv tjent penger på å spille musikk. For helvete: Min kone er musiker. Musikere SKAL tjene penger på musikk. Hvis ikke musikere tjener penger på musikk, tjener ikke musikkselskapene noe. Hvis ikke musikere tjener penger på musikken, har jeg faktisk ingen eksistensberettigelse i forhold til hva jeg til daglig arbeider med (jeg mener forøvrig også at journalister skal tjene penger på å skrive – bare i tilfelle noen var i tvil om det). La meg argumentere mot overskriften ved å sitere meg selv fra artikkelen:

“Kunstnerne tjener ikke nødvendigvis så meget på streaming som på cd-salg. Men man bliver nødt til at se på en kunstnerkarriere som et hele.”

Det handler altså om at utbetalinger fra en stream av et album ikke tilsvarer utbetaling for salg av en CD. Dette er det samme som at et album i mp3 format ikke gir det samme i utbetaling som en CD. Dette henger sammen med hvordan de grunnleggende økonomiske prinsipper fungerer i forhold til opplag og etterspørsel. Som musiker, band, kunstner etc handler det i disse tider om å se på en kunstnerkarriere som en helhet. Denne helhet inkluderer musikk-streaming, salg av downloads, salg av fysiske formater, ulike former for merchandise, konserter, sponsorater, publishing, synkronisering osv.

Jeg er med andre ord av den oppfatning av at man SKAL tjene penger på musikken. Musikken er nemlig hovedproduktet. Hvis jeg mente at man ikke skulle tjene penger på musikk, hvorfor i all verden har jeg i samme artikkel uttalt følgende:

“Det er vigtigt, at det primære medie, hvor folk lytter til musikken ikke er gratis”.

Lovlige tjenester som Spotify og WiMP er begge tjenester som koster penger. Forbrukeren betaler enten gjennom et abonnement (WiMP og Spotify), eller ved å lytte til reklamer (Spotify). For tiden er det imidlertid ingen hemmelighet at en abonnementstjeneste (altså der hvor man selv betaler x-antall kroner for tilgangen til musikken) er det som gir flest penger tilbake til rettighetshaver. Prinsippet er enkelt: Bygger man et hus (som man selger), fortjener man også å få betalt for det! Derfor er det klart at det er viktig at det primære medie hvor folk lytter til musikken ikke er gratis. ERGO: MUSIKERE SKAL TJENE PENGER PÅ MUSIKKEN.

Jeg er imidlertid glad følgende poeng kom fram:

»Spotify og andre lovlige streamingtjenester gør Piratebay (musikpiratsite, red.) overflødig, fordi du ikke behøver at downloade ulovligt, når du har al musikken er tilgængelig på lovlig vis«, siger han.

En ting er dermed at man får mindre betalt for et stream av et album sammenliknet med et kjøp av en CD. En annen ting er at det er utrolig viktig å se på lovlige streamingtjenester som viktige plattformer som overflødiggjør ulovlig nedlastning (pirateri). På denne måten vil streaming tjenester potensielt føre til en merinntjening for musikkbransjen etter hvert som streaming tjenestene potensielt kanibaliserer (på den gode måte) de ulovlige tjenester.

Gjennom en riktig strategi rent markedsføringsmessig og i forhold til økt fokus på kundebehandling tror jeg fremtiden er meget lys for musikkbransjen (legg merke til at jeg sier “tror” når jeg snakker om fremtiden, jeg er altså ingen “spåmand”). Mine prinsipper handler om at det er viktig for artister/musikere å oppbygge seg en karriere gjennom å tilgodekjenne fans og derfor også gi fans hva fans vil ha. Deler av hva de fleste musikkfans vil ha er på nåværende tispunkt streamingtjenester. Dette understreker suksessen til tjenester som Spotify og WiMP i land som Sverige og Norge. Et økt musikkonsum vil dermed potensielt være til stor gagn for bransjen, og på tross av at en stream av et album i seg selv gir mindre utbetaling enn kjøp av en CD, vil summen av helheten stadig være bærekraftig nok for en kreativ bransje i konstant utvikling.

Nevnte jeg forresten at musikere SKAL tjene penger på musikken?

Screenshot av artikkelen som den ble publisert:

Posted in General, music | Tagged Politiken, Spotify, streaming, wimp | 7 Comments

music streaming, social media, online marketing and digital trends.