AMBC Part 2: “I'll Answer That, ‘No’”
At day two of the AustralAsian Music Business Conference, a still-delirious A.H. CAYLEY finds herself party to a section of the Australian music industry that is (for the most part) open to change and progress – even if it takes a Swiss guest to show them how.
Part Two: Friday, August 21
Shivering in a corner of the conference room at this morning's schmooze-session “Power Breakfast” (BYO breakfast), I'm amazed at the speed and ease at which some of the AMBC attendees are able to mingle. Like that of a magician on a cruise ship, their cards are flung from their palms in a blur before they disappear and reappear at the other side of the room, with a new audience upon which to practice their illusions. Pick a card, any card (as long as it's mine and you make me famous). Jesus. I'm glad I'm not the only one looking bewildered.
First keynote speaker today is Switzerland's Gerd Leonhard, “media futurist”, author, blogger, professional keynote speaker, strategist, and author of books such as Music 2.0 and The Future of Music (co-authored with David Kusek). Emphatically, with great conviction and obviously with a great deal of thought, he outlines his model for the future of music sales and content supply – mostly, that we should simply license the internet just like we do radio. It remains free for the consumer, but the artists still get paid. How refreshing. He begins quite simply with an example of The New York Times as a mirror for the current structure of music sales, and it’s from this simple analogy onwards that he has an entire conference room in the palm of his hand.
“The New York Times spends about 20 percent of their money on actual content creation,” he declares in a charming Swiss accent. “The rest of the money they spend on … the building, the trucks, the machines, the printing, the ink and so on. Rupert Murdoch says that ‘an industry that gives away its content is cannibalising its ability to [produce good reporting].’ I think that an industry that gives away its content is [just] giving away its ability to pay for the buildings and the trucks. Therein lies the difference. What is the internet doing? It is not doing away with us, the creators, it is doing away with all the stuff around it that we didn't need in the first place.
“So, guess where 90 percent of the money from music sales went: the corporate perks, the bonuses, the buildings, the trucks. Not the content. People are saying people aren't willing to spend money on the internet … for content. Not true. Around the world, content spending is increasing everywhere: dating services, research, data reports, games, ring tones, ring-back tones. How come they're not paying us for downloads? What's wrong with those people? Well, there's nothing wrong with those people – there's something wrong with us! We're not doing this the right way. We have to think of this differently ... We have to remove the chain of control that we had in the past for the music, so that we can make those sales.”
It’s this statement that resounds the clearest. That in an industry so keen on looking to the past and apparently so resistant to the inevitable change that technological advancement brings, we need to actively evolve to stay alive. It's pretty simple – so why aren't those in charge listening? It seems the issue of control is one to which the major labels are still desperately trying to cling.
“There was a record company executive in 1925,” he continues, “who said the public will not buy songs that it can hear almost at will by a brief manipulation of the radio dials. In other words, radio is bad because it's free music ... What are we hearing today? That the internet is bad because at a brief manipulation of the mouse you can hear music? Ridiculous! Radio was the biggest invention for music, the biggest pushing factor for 50 years! It made most of the money for artists, it put us out into the world. So here's a solution: why don't we just license [online music]? That's what happened with radio ... We need a license for the music on the internet that's built-in, that anyone can use, that basically gets everyone paid in the process.
“And here's, of course, a theme of the record industry: protecting intellectual property is key to the business. Frankly, that puts me to sleep. It's true, of course, [that] it's crucial to protect what we have created. But does it make money, if all we talk about is protection? It doesn't make money – it makes money for the lawyers. Congratulations. Please forget about this idea of domination. We need to devise a new social contract ... We create music, music goes on the network and payment is part of the process, like radio. We can put up a meter – what else is radio than the meter? You get more airplay, you get more money.
“So there's this issue of controlling how people share the music, or copyright protection – it isn't working! You can have control, or you can have the money. So far for the record industry, it has been the control [that's] more important than the money, and that’s simply because it’s about their business, not ours as the creators. It's time we get in there and take control of what's ours [as] the user and the creator.
“We need to fix the structural problem. We need to get to those people that make the decisions [and say], ‘License the music like you license radio. Make it available to everyone.’ I think we should impeach the people that don't like this idea. Because it's killing us! It's making our children into criminals. Not only is it morally wrong, it's ethically and socially wrong.”
Leonhard receives the loudest applause this crowd has given. If I had the energy, I would have given him a standing ovation. Instead, I sit and clap meekly while those around me already begin to chatter excitedly about what they just heard. I only wish such a presentation were open to more. This is something that should be available for everyone to witness and discuss, not just those with hundreds of dollars to spare. That said, it was certainly worth the entry fee.
“If it were in any way comparable to a fucking Walkman, it certainly wouldn't be a topic of discussion at a $700 conference, now would it?”
The following panel focuses on how a musician may aim to rise above the “chatter and chat” with the use of new publicity and marketing tools, such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. It features Keith Welsh, AMPAL chairman, former Music Network co-publisher and Icehouse bassist; MySpace business development manager Nick Love; Clayton Doughty from Gibson Guitars; Shae Constantine, director of domestic music for Warner; Georgia Hull, former senior director of new media and digital business development for Roadrunner Australia; Jade Harley, managing editor of The Music Network; and Leonhard again. Sadly, what could have been an interesting discussion gives few insights, and seems even more insipid in light of Leonhard's preceding presentation. Perhaps it's just that there are few in this audience unaware of Twitter and its ilk, and few again who are not already employing such “marketing strategies”. There's very little to be said on this panel discussion. So I just won't.
In the coffee break preceding the next panel, while we sip our beverages and nibble on delicious and free Byron Bay Cookies, whispers abound about who the next keynote speakers will be (they’re announced as “TBA” in the program). I'm not so enfeebled that I don't think to stuff quite a few cookies in the pockets of my trench coat and again in my bag, as do many others. The life of a musician or a writer is not a romantic one.
Back in the conference room, I'm as eager to see who will take the stage. An email two weeks before the event declared that there will be a “two man tussle ... with a couple of surprise speakers”. Apparently the organisers came very close to getting both Pink and her manager, and also Alice Cooper and his manager, but both fell through. And so, to give the second keynote address of day two: Phil Tripp and Keith Welsh. Well, they sure ain't Pink. They discuss the industry in general, and though there's again little to report, the main theme of the address is that it’s important for us to reconnect with the music. That it’s time to change the language of the industry, to finally view it as a service sector. It’s also the main thrust of the conference. We're trying to look forward, while too many are still looking back.
The next panel is a discussion of “mobile music”, how mobile phones and wireless music transmission “may be at a tipping point”. It features Richard Mallett, APRA's director of recorded music services; CEO of Mercury Mobility Paul Paoliello; Sharon Ashworth, music marketing manager of Vodafone; Karen Farrugia, market manager of Nokia Music Service; and Paul Buchanan, general manager of Soundbuzz Australia. Some interesting points are raised, such as the possibility for an artist to make lots of money in creating their own ringtones, a trend Eskimo Joe apparently started back in the polyphonic days, but it eventually descends into what feels like an advert.
Farrugia outlines a new Nokia service, a “music offering with a handset experience”, whereby consumers get unlimited downloads for 12 months and then get to keep everything they've downloaded at the end of that term. Although she only offers this information when asked, I still can't shake the feeling I'm having something sold to me. Ashworth describes this new technological sensation as “momentary, on-the-go ... a different way of experiencing music … [regardless of] sound quality.” The word “disposable” is used a lot. I can't help but wonder whether this gradual acceptance of low sound quality will come to lower the expectations of recorded music. And if the people creating and promoting these systems see themselves as having any responsibility in preserving music as a personal, qualitative value, rather than just a disposable, monetary one. There's a pause, before Mallett states, “I'll answer that, ‘No.’” Another pause, before he continues. “Dodgy music has been available forever.” He offers the shitty quality of Walkman headphones as an example. What a moron. Firstly, that's not the quality of the music format but the quality of the player, and secondly, how idiotic and willfully short-sighted to suggest that something like Walkmans are as prolific and far-reaching as mobile technology, the spread of which can be seen all around the world and is abundantly more successful than any other technological advancement of the 20th century. If it were in any way comparable to a fucking Walkman, it certainly wouldn't be a topic of discussion at a $700 conference, now would it?
Here I find another issue with the AMBC. While its speakers are well-informed in their fields, and seem genuinely passionate speaking on their areas of expertise, they are not only hesitant to be questioned with any negativity, but are completely unwilling to listen to and consider opposing views or concerns. It's hardly a discussion if everyone agrees.
The next panel is again a bit of a disappointment, though perhaps this is a just a generational issue. It features founder and CEO of TuneCore Jeff Price (also tomorrow's star keynote speaker), MySpace's Nick Love (again), Roadrunner's Georiga Hull (again), Nokia's Karen Faruggia (again) and Gerd Leonhard (again, again) in a discussion about “music recommendation agents” such as Facebook's iLike, MySpace Music, Last.fm, Spotify (a new iPhone application), Twitter, Blip.fm, Muxtape, Price's TuneCore, etc. Pitchfork gets a mention. Mess+Noise does not. Oh, well. Though relevant, it's nothing new. Almost everyone in this audience – mostly Gen X and Y – are not only aware of, but already using these sites. Sadly, this panel again seems as unnecessary as the first today. The only real highlight is Price's response to an audience question regarding whether online discovery will minimise the necessity of gigging. “Music is universal. It's not food, it's not shelter. Nobody needs it but everybody wants it. It's what binds us together; it's a social glue. It defines you. Live music is like nothing else in the world.” Just when I was beginning to think too many here today had come to forget all of that…
Another day is done, and there's only one to go. Though disappointed with the first and third panels, I feel that Leonhard's keynote was exciting enough to make up for today's low-points. Conversely, the second panel, on mobile music, was infuriating enough to be worthwhile. I certainly had a strong reaction to it, even if I was denied interaction. This I think would take the AMBC to another level, and it's a shame that this is its final year and it won't ever see that improvement. These discussions are, on the whole, interesting and thought-provoking, and though perhaps logistically tricky, to allow greater attendee involvement over the current “we're the speakers, you're the audience” model would be so exciting and worthwhile. The keen discussions and friendly arguments that surround me on the train to Central are proof of this. If my voice were working and my cheeks weren't burning quite so much, I'd certainly be joining in.
Bring on the final day.
+
Part three: As the AustralAsian Music Business conference winds down to a close, A.H. CAYLEY finds herself surrounded by desperate last-chance self-promoters and cons.
As the AustralAsian Music Business Conference winds down to a close, A…
At day two of the AustralAsian Music Business Conference, a still-deli…
Faint and feverish, A.H. CAYLEY quickly learns what not to say at day …
I'm a fan of Gerd. Also, re his NYT analogy, think not only of the fixed cost consequences of manufacturing (or printing) plants, transport, EMI 'fruit and flowers' budget etc., think too of the environmental consequences of cd manufacturing plants, transport etc..
I think I just fell in love with A.H. CAYLEY!
early to bed, lady. it's been great reading, as it reinforces that going to conferences, they're not always what they're cracked up to be. i'm wondering if its a case of read the wiki for gerd leonhard - one gets the feeling that not much has been left out.
That Gerd seems like a smart cookie.
Great piece again, A. H.
This is symptomatic of too much of the record industry. Short-sighted, bloody-minded, turf-protecting denialists. The parallels with the coal industry are too many to mention.
BTW, a mild correction. Spotify is a streaming music service which has just had an iPhone and Android app approved by Apple and Google respectively.
Spotify isn't available in Australia yet, but I somehow managed to sign up to the premium service a few months back before they closed it off to limited release (apparently to get it 'just right'). Gotta say, it's pretty bloody good. Massive catalogue streamed in 320kbps with no buffer lag for 10 EU (approx $18 AU) per month. Due for release in US later this year, so hopefully Aus isn't too far behind.
Thanks for a very interesting write up. I couldn't make it, though reading it I probably would have got myself kicked out. Nokias strategy is woeful.
Gerds presentation (audio and slides) are online at his website. I went through it a few days, and whilst I disagree on his idea to tax the net like radio - his general thoughts are very good. At least someone is thinking about the future.
Too right. The biggest issue it that many old jobs are no longer relevant. Some people are trying to find their place in an industry that clearly does not need them.
So these industry windbags are talking about 'reconnecting with the music' and 'tipping points', a la Malcolm Gladwell.
It sounds like they are regurgitating Bob Lefsetz's blogs. He ALWAYS talks about that stuff.
And why the fuck is a guy from Gibson Guitars talking about 'publicity and marketing tools for bands'? Why don't they just ask a guy from the local power station, which powers the amps? Talk about a waste of $700.
I have nothing personally against the speakers. It's just ridiculous that people get duped into going to these silly wank sessions. They would be better advised to spend the $700 on tickets for gigs and some good records.
Bloody hell. There's a sucker born every minute.
some muso was complaining on twitter that Spotify terms are a rip off to musicians.
Oh well, it's usualy the only person that complains is the comp... or the critic. There are no shortage of critics, especially among those who didn't go but that's neither here nor there. Because we won't be doing it again. We did however do a great show for the attendees and you have to remember that not all of them were of the high level of intelligence as AH, not all as knowledgable and certainly most of them werem't as ill!
Great piece though.It wasn't as funny as the previous one but glad we could get Gerd here and present him. If anybody else wants to bring him back, think speaker fee, airfare, hotel, advertising, promotion, publicity. Then think audience numbers (whoops forgot venue and production) times ticket price and see if you could pull it off free or for a small figure.
Boo hoo, Phil. You've made your living doing these kinda things, so why play the ''WOE! HARDNESS!'' card? I'm sure the people who stumped up the cash were grateful.
Why do you care about what anyone else thinks? More to the point, why are you so edgy about criticism or critics in general? It's all a bit Richard Kingsmill...
That was Magnus Uggla - the problem lays with his label, Sony.
No boo hoo about it, There was no hardness at all. If we didn't care what others thought, we wouldn't have made the changes over the years that made it continuously better and more productive. for example, go to http://www.themusic.com.au/resources.php where we put up the 400 or so articles assembled for the attendees use and now given free to those who couldn't attend, much like the keynotes which are all online free. Or go to where you'll see the newsstand with access to dozens of music news resources.
I'm not edgy about criticism, just answering it. Not defending what we did, simply explaining it in a little deeper way for those who do care.
And as for Kingsmill... what a laugh. Here's a guy who has never had to answer to making a profit, running a little music fiefdom on the public teat and not really doing much of anything that seems to satisfy his audience. Triple J Was created long before Rich, did far better in the ratings and relevance under previous management and is now more of a joke than a jubilee.
no, i don't follow his tweets, whoever he is. i think i was following Tony Coleman/London Elektricity, and head of drum'n bass label Hospital. and yeah, even though he's a label head honcho, he was complaining that the big labels are signing up to Spotify because labels get the money and artists get shit.
Not sure where this is going....
So, you're saying we shouldn't bother having a music industry conference with notable industry representatives? Fuck, of course it’s going to cost $700.00 (+) to attend.
Sure, you won’t agree with everything and some topics may seem a little ‘dated’… Good for you!
he's also previously worked with EMI & Sony in publicity & marketing
Anyone heading to the One Movement For Music event?
Here.
Thanks for clarifying why we had Clayton on the panel, indeed, he was on two. One sponsorship and endorsement and the other promotion and marketing.
Timewaster also believes the tickets were $700, something erroneous in Anne's article which i've tried to point out to her, but she'd rather not correct it, possibly because it would take away her vital point (though she spent nothing and even went to the wrong venue--kinda like getting comped on a concert ticket in the private corporate box of ACER and showing up at the Ent Cent... didn't read the ticket!)
The truth be told, the highest ticket for three days was $660, the lowest was $385, the mid range was $440--and that's not with applicable discounts which over half of the audience used. We also offered $100 student tickets for the one day (Saturday), gave away 20 tickets to music business schools (like NMIT, VU, RMIT, Hunter TAFE, Ultimo TAFE, MusicSA, Leedervile WA TAFE, etc but not commercial schools like SAE, JMC, AIM, etc). There were only four people who paid the late walk up rate of $770 and they were corporates and lawyers. Many took only one or two days at the $330/220 rate (with discounts of 10-20%. Oh, and we gave away one free in each of seven cities where we did our free seminar and showing of ''RIP: A Remix Manifesto''.
So all this talk about how expensive it was ends up being kind of lame only because if it was, we would have heard complaints from people who attended. And we didn't. The only one that seems to be making this point is the writer who got in for free. And of course, those who didn't go, those who want this sort of thing for free or those who seem to perhaps resent the fact that a successful event done 9 times in 18 years still pulls in those willing to invest in their careers, taking the time to do it and not think they were being duped or ripped off.
I'm not bitching about it. We invested time and money in it, risked both, and it paid off. yes we made a profit. Why shouldn't we? Was it huge and unconscioanable? No. Did we deceive anyone or kill any animals in the process? No. Did we serve delicious cookies and fresh fruit. Obviously!! And we did serve a buffet of information though Anne seems to only want to pick at the vegetables. I still like her style though.
And hey Ash, I'm not going because I'm pretty conferenced out, it's a long way to go, though I love Perth and though I was asked to speak, didn't think I had anything left to give.
you really, really don't like it when people criticise you or your little conference, do you phil?
I want a job where I talk about people working in jobs and what they should do instead of having a job.
cheap shot, phil.
you are yet again proving yourself pretty good at dishing it out, but being utterly thin skinned to any word of criticism.
you made money, good luck to you. but stop painting yourself as a great humanitarian to the australian music industry.
Phil, I went with the info I had in front of me in the AMBC program. If that is incorrect, that is your fault. It was advertised at a particular price, and I reported that price. That only a few of those highly-priced tickets sold is irrelevant - it was still an advertised price, meaning you still expected someone to pay it, and I will still report as such.
Honestly, the issue of price is only a small element of my piece, (only mentioned once in this installment so I fail to see your argument that it's a vital point of mine) and as I've repeated in the articles, I enjoyed the conference. Perhaps you should re-read the parts where I heap praise on it.
Any decisions to change the article once it is online is not up to me, so I'll thank you not to personally attack me any further.
I'm looking forward to part three of this saga...
it's alright monty, not many in the actual industry care about him...we have grown thick skins and just ignore him.
and yes, phil i know you will point at the 360 people that came to your conference but i ask how many were students and how many were professionals.
i dont actually believe the greatest worth of a music industry conference is always gained inside the event but at the surrounding events/functions/gigs. information sharing and the business that is done at those functions is far more beneficial to most as it will directly help career/business. all reports i received from AMBC was that it was more an information delivery platform and not an information sharing platform with a very sterile environment akin to university lectures...perhaps why it appeals to star-eyed students.
Adam, we do take pride in what we do but after 35 years in the business, I have a fairly thick hide. Some people think that just because I can type fast and answer critics, cretins or doubters, that I am taking offence. It's a wasted emotion.
I'm neither defending nor preaching a gospel. Just answering questions or criticism.
Monty, it's wasn't a cheap shot not even a shot. Not even assault with a dead weapon... I've never been a humanitarian. Never claimed to be. All i did was detail what we did over and above just filling seats. No defense, no excuse, no plea. JUST THE FACTS JACK...Simple...
Anne, I appreciate your effort in trying to be accurate and your inability to correct things once posted. Fact is that we did not have a printed 'program' you would have been referring to our July brochure which was included in the showbag.
There was no personal attck, just a clarification of the price issue. Just because someone disagrees or points our an error doesn't mean they are attacking you. If you are going to make a career of writing, best to take this on board.
And yes, I did take the praise and in turn praised your pieces quite highly. Maybe you didn't see that or were just too sensitive to corrections where suggested. Truth be told, there were tickets on sale nine months prior at $385, six eight months out at $440 less 10 and 20% (which were the most sold), $660 only a month or so out (less than 20% of sales... do the maths.
Ash, part three was great.
Daggers, If you ignored me, you wouldn't read this and answer. the easiest way to ignore is not to answer and sorry bubba, that's not my style.
As to the mix or pros vs students, who cares? They elected to attend, there were no weapons involved and the mox was exactly what we predicted. And it was a great mix. EMI sent close to 20 (inc people on the low end of the food chain), Sony sent a dozen, APRA sent 10, Nokia a few, (BTW Warners none, but that's becasue they have such great leadership in Ed St Gone). Yep we had a good lot of students, but it's because they caw value, just like paying for their courses.
I agree with you about the inside vs outside rationale. While the seminars were delivery (as were the online articles and other resources including each registrant receiving a weekly copy of the Music Network free, a trade in case you don't know it), that was one major part of the equation but not the only one.
The reason we did not do gigs is because most of our attendees would rather not see hopeless and hopeful bands playing their hearts out for a schmoozing audience who really don't give a shit. Same with stands...