For $10,000 per title, a major label can buy the opportunity to force consumers to buy album-only downloads on iTunes. (Indie labels, including SG, need not apply–this is only available to major releases on major labels.) Read more details here, here, and here.

See this for what it is. A brash attempt on the part of the major labels who are bankrupt of new marketing ideas to force consumers who are now used to “choice” to have to buy ten songs at once to get any of the songs on their favored new releases.

Methinks this attempt to return to the good old days will be rejected by consumers. Worse, it may drive those who have been actually purchasing song downloads back to their “free” P2P networks to, in effect, “steal” the songs they want.

The forcing of consumers to buy-songs-they-don’t-want cat is out of the bag. That cat will never be recaptured. This is a bad idea that can only hurt the companies and artists involved. On the other hand, it will probably hasten the resolve of all who are moving forward to create the strategies of the future.

But, since I’m always open to debate… suppose your two favorite SG artists had new releases and one of them was only available as a full album download while the other was available either way, individual songs or full album. What would be your first thought? Would your buying choice be affected?

I learned: that a lot of people really understood the need to have conversation on difficult topics and did think through to their own conclusions on the subject; that a minority of very loud and angry people wanted to scare me. They did.

I am still concerned about our ability to have civil discourse. Speaking to that concern I will no longer be an enabler for those who like to shout and condemn. I take the position that this site is like my home. I invite people in to talk substantively. I welcome a lively discussion where minds can possibly be changed. I do not welcome people into my home to attack me or others–and I will not welcome them here.

If you come in the door looking for a platform to condemn others, you will be asked to leave. Your comments will be deleted.

If your cellphone has a musical ringtone, step back and appreciate it the next time a friend dials you—according to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, you’re listening to a performance. In the latest sign of just how confusing the music licensing system is, ASCAP is suing AT&T over the carrier’s sale of musical ringtones, looking for a cut of the revenue—even though the carrier is already paying for the download rights to these tunes. In a recent filing unearthed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ASCAP says that download payments aren’t enough because each ring constitutes a performance.

Other recent attacks on the music consumer include RIAA successfully suing a housewife [EDIT: Link now down] for (file) sharing songs. Of course they really have no hope of collecting on the $80,000 per song verdict. I guess they just want to scare housewives who (used to) love music.

On the other (forward thinking) end of the collision spectrum, there is another article out about a study documenting the benefits of file sharing. Significant points include:

1.  Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers.  While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded.  In 2000, 35,516 albums were released.  Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008).  Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced

2.  Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries.  For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007 (Screen Digest, 2004 and 2008).  Countries where film piracy is rampant have typically increased production.  This is true in South Korea (80 to 124), India (877 to 1164), and China (140 to 402).  During this period, U.S. feature film production has increased from 459 feature films in 2003 to 590 in 2007 (MPAA, 2007).

3.  The paper takes on several longstanding myths about the economic effects of file sharing, noting that many downloaded songs do not represent a lost sale, some mashups may increase the market for the original work, and the entertainment industry can still steer consumer attention to particular artists (which results in more sales and downloads).

4.  The authors’ point out that file sharing may not result in reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for “complements” increases.  They point to rising income from performances or author speaking tours as obvious examples of income that may be enhanced through file sharing. In particular, they focus on a study that concluded that demands for concerts increased due to file sharing and that concert prices have steadily risen during the file sharing era.

5.  The authors’ canvass the literature on the effects of file sharing on music sales, confirming that the “results are decidedly mixed.”

For file sharing geeks, the full study can be found here.

The authors were one of the first to challenge the early claims about the effects of file sharing.  Years later, many other economists have followed suit (including the study funded by Industry Canada).

Three years ago, when Chris was working with the Dove Brothers on song selection for a new album, there was a lot of deep discussion about taking a slightly new direction.  That discussion centered around him wanting them to cut a “different” kind of song for them — “I Can Pray.”  It wasn’t that they didn’t like the song; it was that they were afraid of the song. Afraid that their audience would not like it. They knew they wanted to change direction somewhat but this song was just too scary.  They thought they knew their audience.  Finally, of course,  they did reluctantly cut the song with two results. “Their” audience loved the song and their audience expanded.

A little over a year ago I had almost the same experience when working on material for a new Kingsmen album. Only one person in the group wanted to cut “When God Ran.” The rest were afraid of alienating their audience.  The argument was that most of their audience came to hear the traditional Kingsmen do traditional (sounding) Kingsmen songs. I agreed but told them that their (admittedly shrinking)  “traditional” audience was the only one they ever saw because everyone else was tired of it and voted by staying away from their concerts.  Well, they cut the song under duress and it became their biggest and most successful song in years. They set a slightly new direction and began to grow their audience.

Every group thinks it knows its audience better than anybody. After all, no one else sees them as often. Both of these established groups thought they knew their audience.

Some groups, especially so-called “emerging” groups just cut songs they themselves love. Without taking “their” (potential) audience into account at all. Sometimes these are really good songs. And  the group is angry and mystified as to why their song does not end up doing well for them. Especially on radio.  “That is a Great Song, way better than some of those at the top of the charts”, they complain.  Often they blame the person (or company) promoting the song.

Actually knowing and paying attention to who your “audience” is (or may become) is fundamental.  The traditional method for knowing your audience has been what I might call disconnected intuition.  It depends on “reading” audience responses and making decisions based on those intuitive “hunches.”  Jim Hamill was, of course, the master of this approach. And many times even he “got it wrong” and he would be the first to say that he really misread it.

Today, there are no Jim Hamill’s around. But there is another time-tested method of knowing your audience. I would call it simply conversation. It is hard to define but easy to see.  Groups like the Mckameys, Inspirations, and Primitives (love them or not) are always in conversation with their audience. On stage, off stage, around the record table, and even when they’re “off the road” and at home, they are always conversing with their audience. Others would probably say “Well, we do that, too.”  But not quite.  Many groups do a lot of talking to their audience. The successful ones converse. Which means attentively and honestly listening rather than talking.  When a group listens, they learn the audience rather than guessing the audience.

Conversing and listening is and has always been the fundamental concept for understanding your audience. Today there is a growing list of “social media tools” that can help groups converse with their audience on a scale never before even imagined. Unfortunately many groups are now using these tools to “advertise” and “promote” themselves and their activities rather than conversing and, especially, listening. They see a lot of activity and they spend a lot of time working these tools. They believe its a good thing to be doing (everyone else is) but rarely see actual results in audience growth as measured by concert attendance or CD sales.

This is simply because the tools are just tools. To make them really effective, which is possible, you have to learn how to use them to create conversations. This is as much a creative process as arranging songs or performing them. Learning to use these new tools effectively to converse takes time, attention, and study. Like learning to sing.  And not understanding the value, a lot groups will probably continue to “guess”, struggle, or worse, think they already know their audience.

And learning how to “know your audience” is important no matter what your enterprise is. It’s not just for artists.