MySpace Music CEO
By Bob Lefsetz
The reason they can't hire anybody is everybody with a shred of tech knowledge knows it's going to be a disaster. MySpace is so 2006... And its software/interface sucks. And there was no traction with Snocap... So suddenly, because fat cats found out social networking/Web 2.0 was the next big thing, they're going to anoint this lame site as the future and their word will come true when it's already the past?
First and foremost, iTunes rules because of the interface. A place where MySpace scores negatively, if that's possible, inundated with ads/promotions so Fox can make its investment back. Permission marketing? It looks like 1999. I don't see them selling the space on iTunes for Google ads like Sony Music, which is why Apple's stock is through the roof and BMG sold for a pittance.
If you want to make a splash in the selling of music, you've got to deliver something different. And seeing how there's a minimum fixed cost to tracks, I don't see how MySpace can eclipse iTunes, especially since it lacks its own hand-held player...there's only half an ecosystem, at best!
If the labels want to leapfrog in front of the public, put a dent in iTunes, they're going to have to do two things... Lower the price and deliver more cluck for the buck.
Sounds like the same thing, I know... But it's not.
If you're going to sell by track, and that's not the future, that's like asking the cell companies to change their paradigm from one of subscription to pay by call, like asking cable companies to sell channels individually instead of by package, you've got to sell them really damn cheap. And since the biggest publishers are Universal and EMI, they can afford to do this. Lower prices across the board. Of course, the artists will scream, because they're getting screwed, and they're right, which is why there's never any progress.
So we've got to start out with fairness. In order to survive with power, the labels have to have fair deals and transparent accounting. But their business model is heinous deals and specious accounting. So, they're screwed. Who's going to change the model?
And the publishers don't want to get screwed either, but with the big kahunas owning their own publishing companies, chances can be taken, but they won't, because they don't want to devalue music, even though the value of music is now zilch, as in free.
But, when I say more cluck for the buck, this is where the labels can execute their secret weapon. Subscription without DRM that includes ownership. Maybe a la eMusic. For a low fee, you get a bunch of tracks every month. It's not about a new store, BUT A NEW BUSINESS PROPOSITION!
http://www.thedeal.com/techconfidential/the-note/the-note/internal-conflicts-plaguing-my.php
By Bob Lefsetz
The reason they can't hire anybody is everybody with a shred of tech knowledge knows it's going to be a disaster. MySpace is so 2006... And its software/interface sucks. And there was no traction with Snocap... So suddenly, because fat cats found out social networking/Web 2.0 was the next big thing, they're going to anoint this lame site as the future and their word will come true when it's already the past?
First and foremost, iTunes rules because of the interface. A place where MySpace scores negatively, if that's possible, inundated with ads/promotions so Fox can make its investment back. Permission marketing? It looks like 1999. I don't see them selling the space on iTunes for Google ads like Sony Music, which is why Apple's stock is through the roof and BMG sold for a pittance.
If you want to make a splash in the selling of music, you've got to deliver something different. And seeing how there's a minimum fixed cost to tracks, I don't see how MySpace can eclipse iTunes, especially since it lacks its own hand-held player...there's only half an ecosystem, at best!
If the labels want to leapfrog in front of the public, put a dent in iTunes, they're going to have to do two things... Lower the price and deliver more cluck for the buck.
Sounds like the same thing, I know... But it's not.
If you're going to sell by track, and that's not the future, that's like asking the cell companies to change their paradigm from one of subscription to pay by call, like asking cable companies to sell channels individually instead of by package, you've got to sell them really damn cheap. And since the biggest publishers are Universal and EMI, they can afford to do this. Lower prices across the board. Of course, the artists will scream, because they're getting screwed, and they're right, which is why there's never any progress.
So we've got to start out with fairness. In order to survive with power, the labels have to have fair deals and transparent accounting. But their business model is heinous deals and specious accounting. So, they're screwed. Who's going to change the model?
And the publishers don't want to get screwed either, but with the big kahunas owning their own publishing companies, chances can be taken, but they won't, because they don't want to devalue music, even though the value of music is now zilch, as in free.
But, when I say more cluck for the buck, this is where the labels can execute their secret weapon. Subscription without DRM that includes ownership. Maybe a la eMusic. For a low fee, you get a bunch of tracks every month. It's not about a new store, BUT A NEW BUSINESS PROPOSITION!
http://www.thedeal.com/techconfidential/the-note/the-note/internal-conflicts-plaguing-my.php
posted by Ricky Ross | 6:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home