Last time, I mentioned that the music industry might not actually exist as a separate industry, at least for the purposes of creating a business model that you can use to market your music.

Sometimes, however, it seems like there is a sort of music industry—one that has as its customer base all the musicians, songwriters, composers, and other creative people. Based on the pitches in my inbox, it is akin to the once growing vanity publishing business that made “pay to publish” a terrible phrase (although it came from a noble tradition). And we don’t even have to look as far as “pay to play” to see the demon rear its ugly head.

A quick history (optional)

Actually it has been around for a long time. It’s roots are found in ads in the back of magazines where you could find advertising for “song poems” that could be made into greatest hits, if only you were smart enough to hire this company to put your words to music and create a record that they would then “promote.” (If you aren’t familiar with printed magazines, don’t worry about it. Just bear with me.) Your professionally recorded song would be sent to all the radio stations (which is how it was done). Of course, your song would stand heads and shoulders above the others on the air, because the song would be crafted by a professional songwriter (obviously otherwise currently unemployed for unknown reasons) and professionally recorded.  Well, of course they were professionals—you paid them, which made them professional (i.e., earning money from music).

Back to current events

These folks, because they preyed on songwriters, were called song sharks, and although the magazine ads are mostly gone, and the disguises have changed, the fact that they prey on the desire of creative people to get their music heard hasn’t changed in the least. The internet not only makes it easier for music to get to people, it also makes it easier for the sharks to pitch their latest revolutionary way of getting your music heard.

Unfortunately, it is hard to separate the sharks (some of which seem to have morphed into vampires, in keeping with entertainment trends; so let’s use the term song vampire for them from now on) from legitimate toilers in the vineyards of music. Music is not a single product, nor simple. There are not any canned ways of doing things that produce more than canned results. So there is a great deal of room for hardworking agents, music pitching companies, music libraries, and so on. But there are few rules to help distinguish the revolutionary new idea (excuse me, we call them “platforms” now) from the same old con in new clothing.

It’s all very tiresome. And to add to the confusion, some things work for a while, then succumb to their own popularity.

Conventional wisbits

There are two competing bits of conventional wisdom out there. The first, the older, is that you shouldn’t pay for anything. That was the advice offered in the song shark era. If your music is any good, then people will pay you for it. If there is money to be made from your music, then plenty of talented people will be willing to work with you to get it in the right hands. This seems dated now, but there is a kernel of truth in it still. But it conflicts with conventional wisdom bit #2: If you won’t invest in your career, why should anyone else?

The problem I have with this wisbit (i.e., wisdom bit—it is the moral duty of journalists to corrupt the language with more meaningless jargon) is that first, it doesn’t provide any guide for where to invest. I have untold thousands of dollars invested in musical instruments, training, computers, software, microphones, sheet music, more instruments… I will stop here, having made that point. None of this is what the song vampires are talking about. What they mean is that my not giving them money is proof that I lack confidence in my own ability, music and career. To that I say (along with many things probably left unsaid): “Bullshit!” What I lack, often times, is confidence in their ability to help me in any way. The fact that they got some punk rock group into a club in Des Moines doesn’t mean a thing about what they can do in getting my music to recording artists, placed in films, or even get me more money when I play the local coffee shop (Yankee Creek, every other Sunday morning, 9:30-11:30—hope to see you there) or a regional festival. In fact, many of the “services” make my life harder because it seems to revolve around my running my life in a way they understand.

That isn’t how it works in the corporate world. In that universe (world is too small a word) the PR person goes to the client (hat in hand, dressed up real nice) and gets a spiel on “what we do and how we do it” and then goes back to the office to devise a program that does what the client wants.

But the point here is not to rant about the ineffectiveness of much music marketing; rather I simply want to point out that when it comes to song vampires, you not only don’t necessarily get what you want or need, but that it might soak up time better spent doing something frivolous, say making music.

Soft sell ending

So if you have some ideas of how to tell opportunities apart from the invitations of song vampires, share them. But bear in mind that everyone seeking money from you is not a vampire, unless they work for a government.

Because I have a passion for music, a lot of years dealing with it, and a background in economics, I recently spent time with people who wanted help in designing a new business model for the music industry. I felt I could use the exercise as well, for my own efforts. It is a subject that one of my cowriters and I discuss all the time. We didn’t come up with a good model (let’s get that out of the way right now) but we did come up with insights that I want to share.

Ayn Rand held that the biggest mistake philosophers (and economists) always made was in not checking their premises—the assumptions that you make when you start your thought processes. After rattling our  brains in an unproductive fashion for some time, I realized that we had never checked our premises. So the first question is, what were they? Were we even starting from the same ones?

When  business might not be business

A basic premise for me, in this case, was that we were going to produce a business model. That’s the words we used, at any rate. Immediately we saw difficulties. I understand a business model to be a set of strategies that can be used to produce a consistent profit. Old economics training dies hard, after all. I was looking for ways to, in the vernacular, monetize the music. The people I was talking with were asking the questions: “How can I make a mark on the music industry? How can I get a foot in the door.” And those are quite different. If profit making is not a critical factor, and sustainability of a business enterprise isn’t at stake, the horizons widen considerably. You have many, many more options. Including one I dislike, which is giving music away. (But I digress.)

The next premise was that it is possible to create a viable model for doing business (however you define that) that can accommodate all the facets of “getting music out there.” There are certainly some strategies, but the delivery systems, targets and attitudes of the people using music are in a lot of flux. People are trying all sorts of things to get music into the hands of folks who will listen to it and use it. Anticipating both technology and trends, when taken to extreme, becomes speculation, and can be a distraction from music.

When is an industry not and industry?

The final premise was that it is possible to model the music industry. And why wouldn’t it be? Well, the answer here is when there is no industry to model.  I know, we talk about it all the time, but that doesn’t make it real. And here is why: Music is a piece of several related industries, not one of its own. Music is used in movies and television and in theater. And these are a part of the entertainment industry, which also encompasses a lot more. As such it is subject to the fortunes of those industries. Songwriters are in the recording industry, which sometimes produces product for film and television, and sometimes for the multimedia industry and sometimes for educational purposes. Music teachers are educators and their career fortunes are tied in more to that industry than anything musical.

It is a tangle of economic indicators, fortunes, and requirements.

In major industries, they separate consumer (retail) activities from business to business products. Sometimes the products are the same, and sometimes quite different. In the world of music (as opposed to industry) a master recording is a business to business product and a CD or download is a consumer product. They are marketed quite differently. The investment and rewards are quite different as well.  As you can see then, a musician/songwriter/composer/performer/teacher serves a lot of different (and diverse) client bases. Each has different needs, requirements, and even business cycles. As a session musician or songwriter, the amount of government spending on education probably won’t affect your business significantly; as a teacher, it might. And the opposite is true if there is turndown in consumer spending on entertainment.

Get a handle on the goal

So, the discussion we had should have started with questions that helped defined what we want to do. “Making music” is too vague to mean much to anyone. But defining specific roles within that universe would tell us who and what you want to be, which makes it possible to find a way to get there. And that is a better understanding of the idea of a business model than we used.

A vision of what you would be doing, a clear picture that shows you touring, or sitting home writing music, or doing studio work, is a place to start. Then trust your gut reaction to that picture. Is it cool, or stressful? That will tell you a lot about whether to even bother pursuing it. There is no point in figuring out a way to get more gigs if you hate playing them!

I would like to hear about your business plans and models. How do you segment this fragmented, bit of lots of other industries? How do you plan to make inroads in your specific segment? This is less about trying to be a star than a serious, and business like, approach to doing what you want to do and being successful at it (by your own standards).

It seems that nothing is more important in business these days than being able to adapt quickly to changes in tastes, technology and other influences, such as the economy. And the music business not only is no exception, it is practically the poster child for a business whipped by changing times. Musicians, composers, songwriters, are just cogs in the machinery of the culture, and more things are affecting us everyday.

The delivery is the thing

Soon Apple’s Tablet will probably force us all to rethink music marketing once again (except for those farsighted enough to have been thinking about it for some time now.). The specifics will come out in the wash, but we know now that every new way of providing content, as we are fond of saying in this age, produces new challenges and promises new profits. The challenges are guaranteed, but the profits can be elusive.

It is said in legal circles that a lawyer who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer; doctors tell you that it is difficult for the best diagnostician to take care of him or herself. There is truth in this, and it applies to all of us. The issue here is a lack of objectivity. It is easy (relatively) to be objective about someone else. That is why, often as not, someone else can write a better press release about your new CD than you can. By extension, marketing your music, taking a long hard look at it can require another pair of eyes, ears, and with luck, another brain to analyze it all.

What I am getting at is the need for musicians to work together or to work with other people in some fashion. Someone who is dtrong in a field where you are weak can be more important than a collaborator or agent. You trade off work and viewpoints. Sounds downright communal, doesn’t it? But perhaps the day of the rugged individualist going it alone in an era of corporate marketing might be all in the past tense. Certainly there is room for the rugged individualist in music, but only if that person doesn’t might being an outsider in the world of success. Only if being an individual is better than being better known for your music and wealthy (ier) than the other kids on the block.

Knowing the turf

I confess to a bit of confusion about the culture I live in at the moment—the United States. Why anyone would watch reality television is beyond me. (Why anyone would watch television is beyond me, but that is another story.) Why anyone would by a CD by someone who won a staged contest fails me. It is supposed to be about the music.

The important point here is that I don’t know the turf—the rules, the motives of customers for the product. And the fact that I don’t understand it doesn’t mean anything at all, except that it is more of a challenge for me to market into that world than it will be for someone who lives in it. Common wisdom tells you that if you want to sell music to movies, you should be watching lots of them to get to know the trends (and hear mistakes as well). But what if you don’t like movies?

Understanding marketing and understanding how to reach people who live in another universe are quite different things.

Using what you learn

I could whine about fate; say that good music should find a niche, but that is useless and pointless. In this case, the music serves a specific cultural need. And this is a critical bit of information for me. If I attach my concept of success to getting music into reality television that I refuse to watch, then I need to connect and work with someone who does understand the attraction of the medium. Otherwise I just play a huge guessing game. You see, adapting to the environment doesn’t mean finding out how to sell them what I do, so much as figuring out what they want and giving them that with my own spin on it.

Just as I wouldn’t pitch a 15 minute classical price for a film scene in a jazz club, I need to understand how I can apply my skills and talents to what is needed in the market.

Alternatively, I can write and produce whatever I want, and be content with the knowledge that some pieces might find a home eventually, but that my standard for success has to be in the quality of the music I create.

It doesn’t matter much if you are talking about performance or licensing master tracks—the issue is the same. If the music you play doesn’t get people into the club, you will stop getting into the clubs as well (or the clubs will go out of business, which can be even worse).

So, if you are having trouble marketing, check your ability to adapt, whether it is to the new content delivery systems, the trends, or something else. If you can’t fix it yourself, it isn’t the end of the world either. You just have to be flexible.

If you’ve found a better path, I’d love to hear about it.

In my last blog I suggested that this start of a new year is an excellent time for refocusing. You can stop, take a breath, get some perspective on what you are doing and where you are going, and decide where you need to put your best effort right now. To complement that idea I am going to suggest that you learn to narrow your focus. You need to pick one, manageable thing. Success in music is not a focus. Improving your skills at getting bookings, learning to play Thelonius Monk, or finding a way of marketing your songs, are all things that can be focused on. And yes, these can, and probably should be, broken down into even more manageable chunks.

The Multitasking Trap

The fastest path to frustration is to try doing everything at once. One of the shocking truths (for some) is that multitasking does not generally produce very good results. It might produce a lot of results, but little of it is worth much. There is no focus, little ability to follow through, and you come across as distracted—not a good image in business, playing on the bandstand, or listening to a loved one. Success and focus go together. The best negotiators are patient people; some of the best players know when to lay back.

Being focused isn’t easy in a world full of distractions, but I frequently see people fall by the wayside because they don’t understand the need. Here is a case in point. A talented singer I know moved to a town and starting putting a band together, jamming with everyone who would let her join in, and booking gigs, all at once. Because she had a compelling personality and a fine voice, she got several gigs. Unfortunately, her talents did not extend to band management and, as the gigs approached, she was unable to keep her band together. Although they rehearsed a fair amount, progress was slower than she wanted, and tempers flared. The band was fired or quit, depending on the person telling the story, and the gigs were ultimately either cancelled (bad for your reputation) or played with a pickup band, which couldn’t provide the showcase she really wanted. Her intentions were fine—she wanted to take the local musical scene by storm, but she didn’t determine what needed to be done, prioritize, and then focus. Impatience shot down an energized effort.

Although it can seem intolerable to put things we want on hold, it is only sensible to present new material or a performance when it is ready, and not a moment before. The big acts rehearse for a long time, and often use coaches to get the performance to the desired level. Even Michael Jackson worked with dance professionals to hone his skills, back at his peak.
If success is your goal, then hard work should be your mantra. And the focus should be on the thing that is most important to do next. It might be something to do with business, it might be art, it might be personal.

Know What Needs To Be Done

A very good course I took years ago suggested that we should all have a short “to do” list. This list should be of only the things that qualify for the heading “If this was the only thing I got done today, I would have accomplished something important.” You put the most important at the top and do it. You don’t think about #2 until #1 is done, or you find that for some external reason it can’t be done today.

That is one way to learn focus. It is how I got this blog done today, rather than at some future time. It is the way I will finally learn to play Thelonius Monk tunes (or anything else).

So you focus, narrowly, on something to be accomplished, then give it your best shot. Then you move on. You can’t make a mistake by focusing and giving it your best effort. It’s only when your thoughts on unfocused (as in multitasking) that you give less than your best.

Now it is time to find your focus, and go for it. It promise that it will make 2010 the best possible year it can be for you. And who deserves that success more?

Many people view the end of one year and the beginning of another as a time to reflect. As an advocate of the here and now, I suggest that a better idea is to take this opportunity to refocus—your attention, your effort and your intention. I’m not talking New Year’s resolutions or anything so trendy. No, it is time to drag out the thoughts you’ve had on your marketing plan and public relations plan, take a hard look at the current realities of the world of music, and get everything up to date.

Why now?

There is a sense of a fresh start that comes with a new year. That means you could have a little extra energy and enthusiasm to put into it. It also means it can be easier to let go of past mistakes and old habits. Habits might die hard, but it was reputedly Einstein who said: “Repeating an action and expecting a different result is one form of insanity.” If he didn’t say it, he should have. And there was never a better time to change your actions.

Remember that figuring out what doesn’t work is a sign of progress. That is the process of discovery that is essential to scientific discovery. You make some assumptions based on the best information available to you, and try something. If it doesn’t work, the appropriate questions are: “Is my vision inaccurate?” and “Do I understand why it didn’t work?” Looking for blame, or worrying about how that effort looks to other people is wasted effort, and adds stress to your life that is counterproductive (not all stress is bad, but self imposed stress that is strictly negative, is.)

My marketing plan thought for the year

Here is a new thought for a new year. It is reasonable to have a marketing plan that involves not trying to market anything. If that sounds foolish, let me explain. Sometimes the reason marketing efforts don’t work is because the product isn’t ready to market. You might need a fallow period, a time when you develop new skills, learn something, gain some insight, or connect with people who complement your efforts. Any of these, or a combination, might be what it takes to create music that gets noticed.

And it might not just be a creative learning. You might, by biding your time and paying attention, find a new way to package your music or performance. In the heat of battle, when you are performing actively and busting your butt to get noticed, it can be hard to see what others are doing. Taking a breather can let you profit from their brilliance and their mistakes, equally. For instance, if you’ve done all the guerilla marketing stuff (which really is not new, or underground, it is just marketing that was repackaged for a wider audience), and things seem to have peaked, getting out and seeing how things work for other artists might open your eyes to new ideas, or you might figure out why things are going wrong.

Time out to learn

For example, I’ve read that you need to “ask for the sale” at gigs. Common wisdom in certain circles advocates having someone hawking your merchandise. Superficially it makes sense. But if I go to a gig and the emphasis is on the merchandise, if the music isn’t exceptional, I won’t hang around. High pressure sales make a free concert too damn expensive for my tastes. I like the CDs and so on to be available, and often buy one or more at a concert, but I don’t want to feel like I went to the mall (I don’t go to malls willingly). A low pressure approach suits me, and seems to suit the audiences I play for. But for a long time, I had the feeling I was doing something wrong, missing out on something. Taking a break from the hustle and gaining some objectivity, I think I was on the right path. Yes, a hustle might have sold a few more CDs, but simply selling a few more CDs was less important than building a loyal following.

As I took a break, I found many areas in my performance that could be significantly improved. All it took was a clear view of what I wanted to accomplish.

Marketing for the laid back musician

For me, marketing is an interesting and often difficult challenge. I am not a pushy person, in general. Aggressive, but I don’t like to go where I am not welcome. So much of my marketing is trying to find ways to be welcomed to new audiences. Getting gigs in bars and clubs requires a pushy person, which is why everyone wants a booking agent or manager—to do it for them.  In my case, I shifted my focus from bars to festivals for a time. I enjoyed playing blues and folk festivals. Good pay, people sell your CDs for you, you play one set, and the evening is free. Not a bad deal. But they are infrequent, making it hard to make a living that way. But it made me happier, and gave me time to create music for music libraries and improve my music skills and understanding, while still gigging.

I don’t want to suggest with this that all of you should take some time out. I just want you to keep it in mind as a possibility. If you can focus your marketing and pr plans toward a clear vision of a successful 2010, and do it with enthusiasm, then you are on a roll. Jumping off now makes no sense. No, this is the fallback plan for those who feel lost in the woods. And, if you need a break, it doesn’t have to be a long one. You just need the time to sort out your thoughts and vision.

Meantime, if you have some insights into things that the rest of us should be factoring into our marketing for the New Year, whether it is a way to deal with music for phone aps or getting tight fisted drunks to buy CDs or download cards, we’d love to hear it and discuss it.

FREE Teleclass With Kavit Haria on Mon 4th January 2010:
Strategies For Kickstarting Your Music Career In 2010.
Click Here To Book Your Place

This post is inspired by a recent post at the CNET blog in which they debate between Myspace and Facebook – the two social networking giants – and which will outperform the other in 2010.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

• I believe Facebook will still be ahead of Myspace in 2010, just as it was this year. Facebook is aesthetically much better, and its clean interface allows users to navigate the website much better. Myspace, on the other hand, needs to clean up and look a bit better.

• Facebook is a community. Myspace still hasn’t thought of itself as a real community; it’s not as easy to discuss, contact your members and communicate with friends as it is on Facebook.

• Facebook opened up its API for developers to create applications. Myspace hasn’t yet, as far as I’m aware. I do believe, however, that Myspace will open up completely in 2010, allowing people to create applications that engage with the website and allow people more chance for interactivity.

Here are some questions to get you thinking:

1. Which do you use more – Myspace or Facebook – and why?
2. What do you think will happen to these two social giants in 2010?

Feel free to share your thoughts with me in the comments below…

You can read a lot about new business models that come from the use of the Internet. Many of the discussions reflect good ideas—thoughtful examinations of the implications of new ways of delivering products to consumers and ways of promoting music through the new media, such as ringtones. But some of it is, to be frank—crap!

One of the highly controversial ideas is that of giving your music away. The concept makes sense at a superficial level. By giving your music away, the consumer, the fan, decides they like what you do, and go to concerts, buy merchandise and otherwise (sometimes in vague ways that are left unclear in the hope that the future will provide new ones) support the musicians.

THE PROBLEM

So what is the problem?  Simply put—the market becomes flooded with music, and the music becomes devalued. If you have a touring band, the logic of the business model, at least, might hold, but it makes no sense at all for songwriters whose income is based on selling recordings, airplay and use in television and movies. And are you in music because of a love or music or simply as a business? Bands hungry for attention will allow their music to be used in movies and television for little or nothing, completely undermining the efforts of nonperforming musicians and composers to earn a living at their craft.

I’ve been told that this is simply a sign of the times—that nonperforming musicians and composers better get with it. That is nothing but foolishness. Times have changed for certain—music supervisors, who are rightfully as cost conscious as the next business person, are getting seduced into using clones of hits and mediocre music (due to its low prices) rather than opting to have truly original music of the highest quality. That might be fine for some productions, but this lowers the bar and reflects the economics of our culture rather than it richness and diversity. This does not bode well for musicians or film and television.

Jennifer Yeko runs True Talent Management in Beverly Hills, and does artist management, music licensing, and music publicity. In a recent email, she mentioned people offering their music for free, saying: “we just want to be able to brag to our friends that some big movie producer is using our songs in their movies/shows.” If you are a professional musician, that is the face of the future you are dealing with. With the exciting musical tools available, people who want to impress their friends are creating tracks that, in some cases, are “good enough.”

Yeko makes four significant points, which I will quote (with her kind permission):

Of these, I find point #2 the most significant. The reality is that we are not talking about exposure, but respect for the work and creative effort that good music takes. Giving away your tracks indicates that you don’t value your music. And what do you really want to be known for: Wild tee shirts and other merchandise, or great music?

Note that this doesn’t mean you should stick it to anyone wanting music. As Yeko advises: “Educate yourself.  Know when you’re being taken advantage of in terms of fees – and when you should be happy to get *any* money – i.e. a festival license for an indie film.”

Yes, it is okay to share in the risk of a project if you are reaping some benefit. I have done music for free for filmmakers under two circumstances:

1)   For a worthwhile charitable cause — I happily wrote and performed music for the video “A Will to Live, a Dream to Dive” produced by Ocean Opportunity which is a documentary of the amazing story of Mathew Johnston who became the world’s first ventilator dependent diver. As a a scuba diver and a fan of heroes, this was a no brainer for me. I wanted the word out and I wanted to be associated with this great project. (Later the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation agreed and provided funding for distribution—but otherwise the video was a labor of love).

2)      Working with someone you respect who is bootstrapping their production; working together, sharing the risk, might produce an interesting future. This one is not unlike cowriting with another unknown. It’s a gamble, but also a learning experience and you have the opportunity to get noticed.

But a funded, for profit operation shouldn’t be the beneficiary of your work without paying for it.

THE PRICE

So what should you charge? What does it mean to value your music fairly?  The fascinating thing about licensing is the lack of standards. Unlike union gigs, there aren’t pay scales. Even script writers have a standard fee schedule that sets a minimum.  Yenko suggests that is why you need professional help in negotiating these things. And that is true to a large extent. A professional has a better handle on what current budgets and going rates are. There are ways to find these things out of course, but how much effort you want to put into that depends a lot on how the rest of your career is structured. If you are a movie composer, or trying to be, some networking is in order. If you are interested in licensing music, but your focus is getting your band bigger and better gigs, then you are going to need help. The contacts and expertise can be of great value.

Once again, this brings you back to the position of that great jazz musician, Socrates, who said: “Know thyself.” (What is less known is that he also suggested playing the natural minor whenever possible, and always hitting the flat third on the off beat.)

Music licensing is challenging, complex, rewarding, and frustrating. If you have had some good or bad experience with it, or simply want to give your story about how you made millions giving music away, let me hear about it!