Category: strategy

  • Amazon, GaGa, & UITS

    Amazon’s inability to ship Lady GaGa album downloads is getting a bit of attention currently. I doubt they under-estimated demand – if anyone knows about demand it’s Amazon.

    It was unlikely to be a basic scaling problem either. Just about anyone with a hardware budget and a few decent systems/network guys can manage to get a few million music downloads out the door these days. Of course Amazon could handle the load, if it were as simple as transactions and file serving.

    However it could be that Amazon have been forced to do transactional tagging, which would increase the cost and risk of high volume music delivery many times over.

    UITS is a likely culprit.

    I can’t see how transactional tagging adds value for Amazon, and in this case it looks, if I am right, like it might have destroyed value on a large scale. I also doubt it adds value for Lady GaGa, and I have yet to see any explanation of how it adds value for anyone else.

    Is someone somewhere keeping a ‘leaky service index’ and gearing up to punish retailers on that basis? The presence of a transactional tag shows at least that the file was bought so it surely cannot be that record labels intend to start targeting the relatively few people who actually buy music, can it?

  • Music Clouds, Portability, and Graduated Response

    Clouds look like bad news to me. Instead of the greater efficiency of shared resources it looks to me like they are all attempts to inflate switching costs and achieve higher profitability, at the expense of efficiency and consumer value.

    Remarkable though how Silicon Valley rehabilitates a metaphor of the formerly unwelcome, and endows it with a kind of messianic glow. I am these days besieged by cloudy conference opportunities – which I am sure are not far off being described as ‘meatclouds’ (sometimes used for sysadmins today) or some similar distressing neologism. But what would make it all make much more sense to me would be if the music cloud meant real competition, rather than increased opportunities for lock-in.

    In telecoms, the evils of lock-in were recognised over time and dealt with. Hassle, costs, and periods without service on the consumer side, and deliberate mal-coordination and costs on the wholesale side all have their regulatory responses around the world, and the result is generally higher standards of service and lower prices. The equivalent for the consumer in cloudy music services would be library and playlist portability; the wholesale market has yet to address portability, but when it does it will probably be just as anti-consumer as the telcos were.

    So here is the big idea. Perhaps, instead of opposing Government intervention to help copyright owners and music services prevent competition, the most progressive among us should be prepared to cede ground on enforcement in return for intervention to insert into music the equivalent of handover and number portability regulations in telecoms.

    The wins are clear for consumers. Instead of facing increased switching costs and losing all his careful curation, Barry the music fan could know that the basic elements of any service he subscribed to could be taken with him to any new service with a better set of features. Bait and switch would be significantly moderated, and investment would have to be directed into consumer benefit in preference to marketing and unsustainable discounts.

    For producers, as sound recordings would need to be consistently and reliably identified the extra supply side discipline would help everyone. Also the temptation to use strategic withholding to pick winners would evaporate, ending the tendency to churn between anointed ‘saviours of the industry’ with consequent value destruction at each cycle.

    Perhaps this would even give the industry a small nudge towards my much longed for fair and open wholesale marketplace for music rights, and end the poison of competitive block licensing, whether collective or private, we have currently. ‘Portability’ could be expressed in the wholesale market and flagged in the transfer metadata quite easily, with proper accountability to licensors, just as a ‘download’ now is differentiated from a ‘play’.

    Consumers who do not wish to register their libraries with services would not get the benefit of regulated portability, but then they have opted out of the service model anyway so why should they care? They have their own kind of portability through the possession of files and metadata. Services which use DMCA-style exemptions for ‘storage at the user’s direction’ would remain free to operate, but would have to live without managed and regulated portability, and would be at a disadvantage if they had to lose the ‘portable’ flag on ingestion of a library. I am sure reasonable deals could be done behind the scenes to bring music libraries into the regulated environment, the costs of which would most likely end up being offset against customer acquisition.

    OK, I have persuaded myself that this represents a trade-off of a big bundle of consumer benefit, is at the very least neutral on the rights owner side, and has a few significant collateral benefits in supply side and market reforms. The less good stuff is that we might have to accept a quasi-judicial whackamole with a faster harder hammer for a while, but over time the good actors and bad actors will become much more sharply defined and divided, as no regulated music service is going to transfer portability flags into a pirate.

  • Fix The Market, Not Copyright Law

    The UK Government has announced another review into IP under Professor Ian Hargreaves; does it or does it not, on balance, generate the optimal amount of GDP growth and jobs?

    The UK is, relatively, a major creative power, being a net exporter of music, and not doing too badly in areas like computer games, advertising, media production, and a lot of the ancillary services that support the creative industries. The EU has some difficulties, partly due to language issues, but also some deep rooted cultural bias (there’s not much of an export market for Schlager music), but has many initiatives in place to help and encourage the creative industries and the knowledge economy.

    All this to my mind is a strong argument for ‘no change to copyright’, if it were not for the systematic distortion of wholesale markets by rights holders and the debilitating knock on effect on consumer services, innovation, and some minor issues such as privacy and freedom of expression.

    The framing here is very important, and seems to me to be well understood by the Government in the way that they have set up the Hargreaves review. It is an open question in my mind as to whether a tweak to copyright law is the right or the best way to deal with problems in the wholesale rights licensing market, but the EU must be looking at the ‘safe harbour’ provisions in the DMCA and wondering whether YouTube, for instance, might have happened in Europe if the EU had got there first.

    Simultaneously of course the licensing administration infrastructure is being overhauled, with an EU ‘nudge’ for a single EU music (works, not recordings) rights database now being upscaled to a global pan-industry WIPO project – that was the big news from the Midem music industry conference in Cannes, 2011. This is I suppose what’s known as a technical fix – change the roads and the cars change too.

    My own view has been that stronger enforcement of fairness and openness in wholesale copyright markets would make a lot of the problems copyright owners are currently trying to externalise go away; and, that some good would be done by strengthening the rights of creators and performers so that they can make better contracts with producers and distributors. We need incentives for a middle class of creators more than we need them for superstars. I am sceptical about the potential for either technical or legal fixes to produce a balanced benefit rather than simply shifting the harm.

  • Online Piracy the Greatest Threat to… Pirates!

    Just reading through the documents from WIPO’s December meeting of the Advisory Committee on Enforcement, and in particular looking at price comparisons between the retail versions and the pirate versions of CDs and DVDs.

    One thing stood out to me, that these products are very highly valued by people, no matter how they manage to acquire them. The retail markets might be relatively small, but the prices when you look at purchasing power parity with the US are stratospheric. Presumably fear of parallel importing is one restraint on more accessible pricing strategies. Another might simply be cultural bias, in that entertainment executives hang out with an international elite rather than the local street.

    The other thought that occurred, was that online piracy looks a far greater threat to the disc piracy business than it does to either local or international entertainment production and distribution companies. If people stop buying from the rug on the floor that’s an existential threat to the vendor, not just an irritation. Nor do those vendors have the option of moving their own business online.

    Of course if the business all moves online anyway then those at the end of the disc piracy supply chain are going to be out of work no matter what. But the work WIPO is doing here is a good reminder that the world is much more complicated than we might like it to be. And that, in such a dynamic system as the global entertainment business, displacement happens in all sorts of interesting ways. Perhaps we should be encouraging torrent trackers for the effect they might have on the kind of pirates who have disc pressing plants, and guns to protect them with.

  • Don’t Trust the Music Cloud

    The skies in Cannes this year have been a painfully perfect blue for almost all of MIDEM. The only clouds have been the latest crap that passes for strategy from the music industry. I am with Larry on the cloud.
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYa6gQC14o]
    Given that just about every digital music exec who wants to keep his job has been wibbling on stupidly about clouds for the last six months I thought this study worth sharing. I still find it surprising that people can be wilfully ignorant and yet get paid many times the national average salary, and be allowed to make decisions that affect the viability of their company and their entire industry. As someone much cleverer than I am is bound to have said at some point, that’s life.
    But I guess there is something amusing about a bunch of overpaid suits on conference panels sounding more like freak brothers than MBAs.
    Hey man, the music is in the cloud!

    Contracts for Clouds: Comparison and Analysis of the Terms and Conditions of Cloud Computing Services

    Abstract:

    Cloud computing offers an attractive solution to customers keen to acquire computing infrastructure without large up-front investment, particularly in cases where their demand may be variable and unpredictable. But the greater flexibility of a Cloud computing service as compared with a traditional outsourcing contract is balanced by less certainty for the customer in terms of the location of data placed into the Cloud and the legal foundations of any contract with the provider. This paper reports on a detailed survey and analysis of the Terms and Conditions offered by Cloud computing providers.