Monday, November 20, 2006

The limits of Internet star-making

I have this theory that there's no money in Internet fame, which is going to shoot a lot of business models.

The standard music story these days is that some unknown band or artist posted songs on MySpace or videos on YouTube, generated a million plays, and got signed to a major label deal.

The thinking behind this is that all of this visibility is a sure sign that the masses have spoken: that they really like this band/artist. Labels are interested because the band/artist has already been test-marketed. The same concept was embraced in the early days of MP3.com, but people found out that rising to the top of those charts meant relatively little in the real world.

What we have seen both in the past and now is that when fans are able to listen to music for free or watch videos for free, they often do not then go out to buy an album or go to a show.

In fact, I will postulate that Internet visibility is a negative when compared to more traditional forms of music marketing.

The very fact that there are unlimited opportunities to showcase yourself on the Internet means that the barriers to entry doing so are nil. Sure, only a few attract the attention of millions so it is a small group, but since videos featuring geeky/weird/bizarre subjects can outdraw those involving better bands/artists, avid MySpace/YouTube patrons already know there is often a disconnect between talent and visibility.

Here's an example: Marbles Lost Blender Co Mixes Up YouTube "If anyone doubted the wild, wonderful things a marketer can do with a phenomenon like YouTube, they can suspend that disbelief by turning to Blendtec. A $50 demonstration of sheer blending power attracted six million viewers in just five days.

"After all, who wouldn't want to watch a man in a lab coat and goggles drop 50 marbles, or golf balls, or a crowbar, or a rake handle, into a blender while teasing the viewer with questions about whether those things can really be blended. "

In contrast, appearing on television or radio is not an option open to everyone. Those bands/artists who get the opportunity have added to their status level by having access to a relatively scare commodity.

This then filters down to fans. The higher the status of the band, the better the bragging rights to those who attend the band's concerts. For a fan to say he/she went to a concert of band with 200,000 fans on MySpace means less than to say he/she went to a concert of a band who has been seen/heard on TV. Getting your song in a popular TV soundtrack greatly trumps racking up lots of Internet plays because only a limited number of songs can get played on TV.

The lack of recognized filters for popular Internet bands lowers their cachet. And since increasingly fans seem to go to concerts to increase their own status (through taking photos, sending text messages to friends, and through blogging), they want to associate themselves with high status bands.

So when labels sign popular Internet bands on the assumption that those bands will become gold and platinum sellers, they have it backwards. They need to break bands the old-fashion way (through radio and TV and touring) and then use the Internet to enhance the marketing of those bands. If the Internet popularity comes first, it's likely the fans won't be inclined to take the next step and buy in significant numbers either albums (they'll just listen online or find a way to get the music for free) or concert tickets (because the cool factor won't be there). They will be aware of those bands, but won't necessarily be motivated to spend money in pursuit of them.

In other words, bands that generate attention in an entirely free medium do not necessarily maintain that attention when people are asked to part with their money. Not only has the Internet devalued recorded music (by training people to expect it for free), it is now devaluating status. If anyone can become a "star" on the Internet, it doesn't mean much.

The Internet is for exposure. But exposure without filters just turns the product into a commodity.









No comments: