One of the great things about working on the DataPortability Project, is the exposure to some amazing thinking. Today alone, I stumped on this great piece questioning the point of a music label (via Crosbie Fitch ). Separately, I also came across this interesting bit of thinking about imagining what a world would look like without copyright . Those pieces helped give me more solid arguments with something that’s been on my mind a lot. That being, consumers don’t pay for content’s representation per se. Instead, they pay for the associated experience.
With the digital age, we have seen an uprooting of these traditional industries that operate in the content industries as we have seen with the recording & publishing industries. Our traditional approaches to managing content are being challenged, because we (or rather, they) grew complacent on the technological limitations of content distribution. However, now that we have a new type of technology to distribute content (due to computing, the Internet and the web), we are seeing greater potential for content to be consumed – and it’s also exposing something we have forgotten. The digital revolution is changing business practices but it highlights the true nature of content: it’s about the experience.
To illustrate what I mean, let’s define content as being products like music and books.
When you buy a album, you are not buying it for the physical CD or the plastic casing. The reason you are buying it, is so you can get access to the music. This access entitles you to experiencing the music. On a similar note, when you go to a concert to hear a band, you are not paying to stand in a concert hall. You are paying for the experience of hearing the music live, which also incorporates the associated experience of being a part of a crowd. Both those experiences trigger an emotional reaction – which can be positive or negative, but regardless, is what makes us feel alive. Humans pay for music, because the emotions being triggered by that content, helps them feel like humans.
Beyonce’s movements: something you pay to experience
With books, what you are purchasing is knowledge. The paper that you read the novel on, which although can sometimes been done up nicely, isn’t why you buy it. What you are buying, is an experience to consume that knowledge. Some books offer intellectual stimulation; other books offer excitement through a riveting storyline. Regardless, the experience of the book reading is what you are purchasing.
It’s about the experience, stupid
Talking about cultural artifacts like music and books is one thing. But there is no reason why we can’t consider this with information in a generic sense – as the initial data is simply a stage earlier in the value chain . In the context of my personal data, this is something that I have generated. Nothing really special about it. But it becomes special, when a web application can do interesting things with that data. That meaning, when a application can process my data in such a way that gives me a new experience.
For example, there are certain Facebook applications that reveal some interesting information about my friends, by generating insight. Knowing that 58% of my friends are male is useful when I’m considering a party (more beer and Beam; less wine and champagne). Knowing that some of my friends are traveling or living in a certain country, is useful because it gives me awareness that I can meet up with them. By Facebook allowing applications to process my data in the context of my friends, the information they can generate is a lot more valuable if Facebook locked this down. The experience of having access to this information, is not as emotionally driven as a Jane Austen book; but the experience of insight is still something I get out of it.
The ability to offer a unique experience to a consumer, is what is key to any information-based products. Triggering emotions is a powerful thing about humanity, and a consumer when consuming information is looking to get an experience which in reality can only be captured in their memory. Of course, content in the form of entertainment is more about the emotion, whilst news is more about the access , but that doesn’t take away from the inherent characteristics of information.
Recognising that information-products are an experience, should give a better understanding about what we do with them. For example, writing this blog I don’t get any monetary benefit from it. However, the more people that want to copy my "original work", the better. Whilst that may sound contrary to smart business sense, it’s because I recognise the benefit I get from blogging is reputation (well one of them at least). And despite the fact people can ‘steal’ my content, doesn’t mean they can steal my brain. As a content creator, I am being rewarded with the associated benefits of a good reputation, despite the fact I cannot assert ownership over my words.
"If you put that picture on the Internet I’ll call my lawyer"
So why do we obsess over control?
If you are a web application, a book author, or a musician – the way you make money isn’t through the information you generate. Instead, what you are being rewarded with is with a brand; a relationship with your consumer of trust; or just simply attention. Open source developers can appear to be like some hippies helping the world. But look closely at how they make a living, and it’s on the associated expertise that has been recognised onto them through their brand, which allows them to charge for consulting.
If you operate in the information industry, the way you make money is on the experience you create for the consumer – and by generating that experience, you can then create a monetary stream off it. For example, a band that no one knows about has no demand for their music. A cult following, because people get obsessed over their songs played freely everywhere, allows them to make buckets of money on merchandise and concerts. Twitter is a web application, that when I first heard about it, I would never have used it. Now that I use it, I am willing to pay for certain benefits that make my experience more enjoyable (ie, profiling of tweets, etc). Twitter has an opportunity to make money because I value the experience they offer me, and I’m willing to pay to make it a better experience.
In the information business, experience is ultimately your product. Ignore that, and you will be making decisions that at best, will amount to a huge amount of opportunity cost. Here’s hoping that as we move forward with DataPortability, the thinking of businesses can change. Locking down data is not how you make money; it’s the compelling experience you offer your consumers that is the true source of competitive advantage and ultimately, revenues.
The value is in the art – not the copy.
People have certainly paid for copies (at inflated prices), but it is the art that they enjoy and the art that they most value. And even without copyright, people will still pay for the art, even if copies become free.
Having control over the manufacture of copies can certainly be lucrative, but that doesn't create money out of nothing.
One person's gain of control is another person's loss of freedom.
The freedom that has been lost over the last three centuries (to provide publishers with control over copies) is cultural liberty.
For all the people who have had their freedom to use, perform, exchange, or build upon public culture curtailed, you have had publishers who've held it hostage for ransom to anyone with enough money – knowing they have the power of the state for any necessary enforcement.
Copyright is now ineffective. The publishers have lost their control. The people have regained their cultural liberty.
We now have a free market, without monopoly, in which artist and audience can make a far more natural and equitable bargain:
Art for money, money for art.
No loss of liberty, no taxation, just fair.
The value is in the art – not the copy.
People have certainly paid for copies (at inflated prices), but it is the art that they enjoy and the art that they most value. And even without copyright, people will still pay for the art, even if copies become free.
Having control over the manufacture of copies can certainly be lucrative, but that doesn’t create money out of nothing.
One person’s gain of control is another person’s loss of freedom.
The freedom that has been lost over the last three centuries (to provide publishers with control over copies) is cultural liberty.
For all the people who have had their freedom to use, perform, exchange, or build upon public culture curtailed, you have had publishers who’ve held it hostage for ransom to anyone with enough money – knowing they have the power of the state for any necessary enforcement.
Copyright is now ineffective. The publishers have lost their control. The people have regained their cultural liberty.
We now have a free market, without monopoly, in which artist and audience can make a far more natural and equitable bargain:
Art for money, money for art.
No loss of liberty, no taxation, just fair.
In this week's BRW there is an article discussing how record labels are now wanting to increase the price paid by gym's for the music that is played. It is a compelling read (useless link because you have to sign in – oh the irony) .
My summary of the article is that the record artists all feel it is about the experience and not the copy as well. There point to a gym is that if they really can not pay true value (i.e. much more than they are now) for the music, then turn it off.
When reading it I was wondering how much pre-sales for music a gym is. Surely there is a lot of music sold because somebody heard it at the gym. Not being a gym goer myself I'd be interested in others take on this perspective of experience payment for copyright.
Perhaps they need a better way of tracking which songs are played when so they can have better analytics on if more gym play vs radio air play assists sales.
@Crosbie: Thanks for your comment, as always, profound and insightful
@Angus: Interesting idea, thanks for sharing.
As someone that goes to the gym four times a week, perhaps I can offer some perspective
- my friends and I definitely notice the music and it affects our weights sessions.
- they either play pop music with pretty girls on the video clips (we love it, helps with testosterone!) or gay-community music which which is high-energy (can get annoying)
- As the music affects our sessions, we've often pondered who controls the play list. If we were required to pay for the music, I can imagine an eruption over who can control tracks being plated. The only solution then would be to turn it off.
- My gym oftens uses these video clips and music plays to include advertisements. It's just like a in house radio station.
My take on the issue, consistent with what I raise in my post above, is that the music should be free. The reason I hold this view, rather than a subscription model (which as I realise above I don't know how they could fairly do it), is that the artists ultimately benefit from this. I've come across music that's given me better appreciation of an artist's talent – it's like free advertising for them. A form of marketing.
The music should be free in the same way radio is. The gyms ought to pay a royalty like radio does, and they can offset the cost via advertising. Given the record companies want to increase the price, it's because they clearly realise this is a massive market as consumers attention are locked unlike any other medium currently (ie, the consumer can't control the content like how TV used to be forcing you to watch ads).
This is a clear example of the record companies doing something that benefits themselves more than the artist.
The gym's already pay an airplay fee but it is not large enough , according to the record companies. The argument the record companies are using against the gym's just smacks of corporate greed. It's like the cut and pasted their discussions on mp3 download and applied it to another argument.
There would surely be a better model that would commercially make sense for the gym's and the record companies. That's why I hinted at the idea of a tracking system – i.e. some sort of electronic distribution system where the record companies can get real stats regarding the number of tracks played etc.
I'd suggest that the music is expensive, but that once it's been paid for and published (delivered to the public) there is no further money to be paid to anyone.
So I wouldn't suggest that music should be free of charge by any means, unless, of course, a musician needs to promote themselves.
Check out http://www.jamendo.com for a site of published, high quality music that any gym owner can download, play, record, copy, share, without breaking any laws, without needing to pay any royalty or license fee (MCPS-PRS).
Because this unencumbered music is so much more convenient, requires no licensing fees/administration, and is less fraught with risk, it is expected that those who most enjoy specific artists will commission those artists directly to produce further music. Thus, a gym and its patrons will directly commission the best artists.
It's the new choice:
OLD: Sign to label, receive 1% of gross revenue (after recoupment) extracted under threat of prosecution from audience.
NEW: Remain independent, receive 100% of gross revenue from 1% of a more appreciative and culturally liberated audience.
So, with the 'new' option the money's probably slightly better* – for the artist. The label's not a happy bunny. The audience is emancipated.
* given that 1% from a label only kicks in after the few years it takes for recoupment to occur – if ever – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoupment
In this week's BRW there is an article discussing how record labels are now wanting to increase the price paid by gym's for the music that is played. It is a compelling read (useless link because you have to sign in – oh the irony) .
My summary of the article is that the record artists all feel it is about the experience and not the copy as well. There point to a gym is that if they really can not pay true value (i.e. much more than they are now) for the music, then turn it off.
When reading it I was wondering how much pre-sales for music a gym is. Surely there is a lot of music sold because somebody heard it at the gym. Not being a gym goer myself I'd be interested in others take on this perspective of experience payment for copyright.
Perhaps they need a better way of tracking which songs are played when so they can have better analytics on if more gym play vs radio air play assists sales.
@Crosbie: Thanks for your comment, as always, profound and insightful
@Angus: Interesting idea, thanks for sharing.
As someone that goes to the gym four times a week, perhaps I can offer some perspective
- my friends and I definitely notice the music and it affects our weights sessions.
- they either play pop music with pretty girls on the video clips (we love it, helps with testosterone!) or gay-community music which which is high-energy (can get annoying)
- As the music affects our sessions, we've often pondered who controls the play list. If we were required to pay for the music, I can imagine an eruption over who can control tracks being plated. The only solution then would be to turn it off.
- My gym oftens uses these video clips and music plays to include advertisements. It's just like a in house radio station.
My take on the issue, consistent with what I raise in my post above, is that the music should be free. The reason I hold this view, rather than a subscription model (which as I realise above I don't know how they could fairly do it), is that the artists ultimately benefit from this. I've come across music that's given me better appreciation of an artist's talent – it's like free advertising for them. A form of marketing.
The music should be free in the same way radio is. The gyms ought to pay a royalty like radio does, and they can offset the cost via advertising. Given the record companies want to increase the price, it's because they clearly realise this is a massive market as consumers attention are locked unlike any other medium currently (ie, the consumer can't control the content like how TV used to be forcing you to watch ads).
This is a clear example of the record companies doing something that benefits themselves more than the artist.
The gym's already pay an airplay fee but it is not large enough , according to the record companies. The argument the record companies are using against the gym's just smacks of corporate greed. It's like the cut and pasted their discussions on mp3 download and applied it to another argument.
There would surely be a better model that would commercially make sense for the gym's and the record companies. That's why I hinted at the idea of a tracking system – i.e. some sort of electronic distribution system where the record companies can get real stats regarding the number of tracks played etc.
I'd suggest that the music is expensive, but that once it's been paid for and published (delivered to the public) there is no further money to be paid to anyone.
So I wouldn't suggest that music should be free of charge by any means, unless, of course, a musician needs to promote themselves.
Check out http://www.jamendo.com for a site of published, high quality music that any gym owner can download, play, record, copy, share, without breaking any laws, without needing to pay any royalty or license fee (MCPS-PRS).
Because this unencumbered music is so much more convenient, requires no licensing fees/administration, and is less fraught with risk, it is expected that those who most enjoy specific artists will commission those artists directly to produce further music. Thus, a gym and its patrons will directly commission the best artists.
It's the new choice:
OLD: Sign to label, receive 1% of gross revenue (after recoupment) extracted under threat of prosecution from audience.
NEW: Remain independent, receive 100% of gross revenue from 1% of a more appreciative and culturally liberated audience.
So, with the 'new' option the money's probably slightly better* – for the artist. The label's not a happy bunny. The audience is emancipated.
* given that 1% from a label only kicks in after the few years it takes for recoupment to occur – if ever – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoupment
As an owner of a small gym, I think it is simply another example of corporate greed. With the taxes we pay, and the economy in the state it is in, its hard enough, now I have to pay to play the radio? Are you kidding me. Why arent the song writers taking a bigger cut out of Brit Brits end, instead of the small business owner? We try to keep our membership prices low to make health and fitness available to more people. We think building a healthy community will benefit all of us in numerous ways. If we have to pay yet another fee, Ill have no choice but to increase our prices.
On another note, if singers and song writers are opposed to what I view as free advertising, fine. Ill stop playing the music. I have an MP3 player. Music seems to be more hassle than its worth in my club any way, everyone is a critic, theres always someone bitchin and moaning that Beyonce came on and how Jay-Z isnt "music" and why cant I listen to more AC/DC or what about Slipknot? It takes me hours to make a playlist that appeals to everyone, and to proof it for language. I could easily do without that hassle.
This is truly the day that the music died.
As an owner of a small gym, I think it is simply another example of corporate greed. With the taxes we pay, and the economy in the state it is in, its hard enough, now I have to pay to play the radio? Are you kidding me. Why arent the song writers taking a bigger cut out of Brit Brits end, instead of the small business owner? We try to keep our membership prices low to make health and fitness available to more people. We think building a healthy community will benefit all of us in numerous ways. If we have to pay yet another fee, Ill have no choice but to increase our prices.
On another note, if singers and song writers are opposed to what I view as free advertising, fine. Ill stop playing the music. I have an MP3 player. Music seems to be more hassle than its worth in my club any way, everyone is a critic, theres always someone bitchin and moaning that Beyonce came on and how Jay-Z isnt "music" and why cant I listen to more AC/DC or what about Slipknot? It takes me hours to make a playlist that appeals to everyone, and to proof it for language. I could easily do without that hassle.
This is truly the day that the music died.
[...] It’s the experience that matters: How the digital revolution is making us realise content is about an experience. Content is not something you control. [...]