My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!

Pandora less than t-shirt sale

As a songwriter Pandora paid me $16.89* for 1,159,000 play of “Low” last quarter.  Less than I make from a single T-shirt sale.  Okay that’s a slight  exaggeration.  That’s only the premium multi-color long sleeve shirts and that’s only at venues that don’t take commission.  But still.

Soon you will be hearing from Pandora how they need Congress to change the way royalties are calculated so that they can pay much much less to songwriters and performers. For you civilians webcasting rates are “compulsory” rates. They are set by the government (crazy, right?). Further since they are compulsory royalties, artists can not “opt out” of a service like Pandora even if they think Pandora doesn’t pay them enough. The majority of songwriters have their rates set by the government, too, in the form of the ASCAP and BMI rate courts–a single judge gets to decide the fate of songwriters (technically not a “compulsory” but may as well be).  This is already a government mandated subsidy from songwriters and artists to Silicon Valley.  Pandora wants to make it even worse.  (Yet another reason the government needs to get out of the business of setting webcasting rates and let the market sort it out.)

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Pandora get off the couch and get an actual business model instead of asking for a handout from congress and artists? For instance: Right now Pandora plays one minute of commercials an hour on their free service. Here’s an idea!  Play two minutes of commercials and double your revenue! (Sirius XM often plays 13 minutes and charges a subscription).

I urge all songwriters to post their royalty statements and show the world  just how terrible webcasting rates are for songwriters.

The revolution will not be webcast.

* I only own 40% of the song, the rest of the band owns the other 60% so actually amount paid to songwriters multiply by 2.5 or $42.25)

**  I am also paid a seperate royalty for being the performer of the song.   It’s higher but also what I would regard as unsustainable.   I’ll post that later this week.

For frame of reference  compare Sirius XM paid me $181.00

sirius royalties

Terrestrial (FM/AM) radio US paid me $1,522.00

Terrestrial Radio royalties Low

Time For Silicon Valley To Grow Up And Take Responsibility For Their Online Advertising Business Model.

Time For Silicon Valley To Grow Up And Take Responsibility For Their Online Advertising Business Model.

Whitelist vs Blacklist Advertising.

Last week much of the world was horrified to learn that Facebook was serving ads from major brands on pages devoted to what the Huffington post described as:

horrific rape-oriented Facebook pages… (including) graphic images of gore and horror, beaten children, naked children, women bound and gagged, or thrown down stairs.

The public outcry against the brands and Facebook was overwhelming. Facebook and many brands were forced to apologize and revise policies (let’s see how long this lasts!).  Dove may have suffered long term damage to their brand.

WAM (Women Action Media), feminist Soraya Chemaly and Everyday Sexism should be commended for bringing this issue to light and achieving real change (and the stunning coordination of their campaign should be a lesson to artists advocates).

What we find interesting here at The Trichordist  is that many of our brands were the usual ad-supported piracy suspects.  In particular  Nationwide and American Express.  We have repeatedly called out these companies for advertising on cyberlocker sites that exploit artists and others.  And as we have noted over and over again this is not just about music.  Generally these sites  include links to bestiality, rape, illegal pornography videos as well as music (Urban Outfitters and Lexus advertising against beastiality links.)  We’ve both publicly and privately reached out to many of these advertisers to no avail. www.adland.tv  actually ran an article entitled “American Express Thinks You Might Like Piracy and Child Pornography” after reviewing my research.

Just as Facebook was long aware of these horrific pages, American Express and many other companies have long known their advertising was ending up on these pages. This latest brouhaha shows (as we have noted) they have yet to take effective action.

And we know why.  Total obfuscation by the online advertising ecosystem: in house ad buyer, Madison Avenue advertising agency, online ad network, ad exchanges and possibly complicity by the brands themselves.

We have seen and documented the following responses from the online advertising ecosystem (In fact I just got a refresher course May 28th at Westminster College in London as I participated in a panel discussion  “Follow The Money: Can The Business Of Ad-Funded Piracy Be Throttled?):

Lame Excuse #1.   We can’t control where these ads end up.

Response:  Then why on earth would anyone pay for your product?  Are you  admitting that your product is faulty? Cause I can think of a couple of lucrative class action lawsuits.   We think you can control where the ads end up. You just want the money.

Lame Excuse #2:  We are not the internet’s policeman (most recently by Google at Westminster College London).

Response: This is a “straw man” argument.  No one is asking YOU to be the web’s policeman. We are simply asking you to run your  company ethically and responsibly. Please stop obfuscating.  Sure the police arrest the thieves, but just like pawnshops, Google and the rest of the online advertising ecosystem have a ethical, moral and LEGAL obligation to make sure they are not selling stolen pageviews.  If a pawnshop used this excuse to sell stolen goods they would be shut down and the owners would go to jail.

Lame Excuse #3:  We don’t know who the bad guys are.

Response:   Really? Then who get’s the money for the CPMs  and/or Clicks?  Are you just leaving suitcases of cash in lockers at greyhound stations?  And if you are doesn’t that seem a tad suspicious? Who pays the taxes on these transactions?   If you don’t know you are probably in violation of many tax laws in many countries. And that’s how they put Al Capone in jail. Don’t mess with the tax man.

Lame Excuse #4:  Apple and Coca Cola don’t end up on these sites because they use “White Lists”.   This was the response from Alexandra Scott the UK Public Policy Executive for Internet Advertising Bureau.  This as always was delivered with an undertone of dismissiveness. As if Apple and Coca Cola just “don’t get it!” and should be advertising on shitty file infringing sites next to trojan downloads and Russian bride ads.

Response: Exactly. Whitelists.  They actually vet the websites on which they are advertising. They check to see if these sites are legitimate sites.  Using the pawn shop analogy.  They actually check to see if the goods-in this case pageviews- are stolen.

And this brings us to the fundamental problem with the internet advertising ecosystem.  It’s not the obligation of artists, feminists, anti-human trafficking activists and animal rights groups to tell you where you should not be advertising. It’s your job. Grow up. Quit trying to force us to do your job for you.

Blacklist systems too often put the burden on the victims or advocates for the victims while enabling brand advertising and Madison Ave/Silicon Valley profits at the expenses of others.

Whitelist systems put the burden on those reaping the benefits:  Brands, Madison Ave. Silicon Valley and Publishers.   This is the ethical model.

Note:  whitelists and blacklists are not created by the government.  These lists are designed for a narrow purpose–brands should be able to spend their advertising dollars in a predictable way that results in the brand being able to control the brand’s own speech.  These lists are not designed to block anyone’s speech.

There’s another way to look at this from the brand’s point of view, which may be better than developing “lists” that are either/or lists that put a site in or out or operation.  It is entirely consistent with the brand’s ability to control the integrity of their products and their right to not be defrauded out of advertising money for the brand to put together lists of sites that they want to avoid, or “undesirable” sites as Google’s Theo Bertand said on our panel in London.

Time for the internet advertising ecosystem and their Silicon Valley enablers to learn to act ethically and responsibly.  Companies like Starbucks and Costco have figured it out.  Companies like Walmart that came under criticism for various unethical practices mostly addressed these problems.  What is Silicon Valley’s response?  “Censorship” and “You silly people don’t understand the internet.”

I call bullshit on this argument.  And we “silly people” understand you better than you think.

Silicon Valley is the new wall street.  Sure they have green buildings and make the occasional charitable donations.   But mob bosses were notorious for making donations to the local orphanages and policemen benevolence societies.

Silicon valley doesn’t give a damn how it makes money. It will do anything to make money.  No matter what the moral implications.   It has a fake censorship argument that it uses to mask it’s fundamental amorality and greed.   Entire PR campaigns (including fake paid bloggers and fake public interests groups) are devoted to promoting a techno Nihilism: If you can do it on the internet-no matter how horrific that act may be-stopping someone from doing it is “censorship” and  infringes someone’s “freedom”.

This is the kind of argument a 13 year old wouldn’t even make.  And it’s amazing that the mainstream press never calls them out on this.  Again why is it left to a 50 year old  moderately successful indie rocker to call them out on this bullshit?

Look it’s very simple.

Grown up style freedom:

“My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of the other man’s nose.”

Silicon Valley petulant 13 year old style freedom:

“My right to swing my fist is absolute.  And you’re not the boss of me!”

Silicon Vallley and the rest of the online advertising ecosystem needs to grow up.

YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY READING:

Google, Advertising, Money and Piracy. A History of Wrongdoing Exposed.

ADWEEK : “Ad Industry Takes Major Step to Fight Online Piracy”… Again…

Over 50 Major Brands Supporting Music Piracy, It’s Big Business!

Look who’s Pirating now! University Of Georgia Music Business Program’s Preliminary Study Of Advertising On Copyright Infringing Sites.

Mostly Online Advertising is a Cesspool For Brands. But Sometimes it’s funny @ldschurchuk

Good Morning Mormon Church UK!

Unless I’m reading this html wrong it looks like adsense (google) helped serve your ad onto a Pirate Site against  a film called “Sex of the Angels.”  And this film is  about?… well maybe you should watch it.   Let’s just say it looks  like there is some “plurality” involved. Pretty sure you didn’t intend this!

Screen Shot 2013-05-31 at 7.58.18 PM

Why I Was Banned From Speaking At San Francisco Music Tech #SFMUSICTECH

this photo says it all

“This says It all”

I was supposed to speak at the SF Music Tech Summit Feb 19th 2013.   A few days before my scheduled appearance I received a call from  SF Music Tech and Fututre of Music Coalition co-founder Brian Zisk explaining that I would not be allowed to speak because I tweeted/blogged the above picture with the following caption “this says it all.”   Further he noted that “certain sponsors” would not “appreciate” me speaking at this event.

I love the hypocrisy of the Silicon Valley. They are all for free speech until they aren’t.

The fundamental American right is Free Speech. SF Music Tech (and Silicon Valley in general) do not really respect this right. Especially when it begins to interfere with their bottom line.

So what do you say we just end the charade? SF Music Tech Summit is biased against creators/musicians and their rights. It’s a pro-tech industry event.  It’s held in the Kabuki Hotel in San Francisco.  Because it is a giant Kabuki.

Three times a year  you find Tech Industry “entrepreneurs” who’ve never turned a profit “debate” un-elected artists rights advocates who as it turns out work for opaque 501C  foundations and organizations  that are funded by technology companies like Google.

If it’s not clear I’m talking about you, Future of Music Coalition and Cash Music.  Sorry guys/gals you had your chance to do the right thing and  speak out publicly against me being banned and you didn’t.  That makes you at best quislings and at worst shills.

SF Music Tech and Brian Zisk have every right to do whatever they want with their #SFMUSICTECH summit but I just ask them to stop pretending it reperesents anything other than the technologists that wish to exploit artists.

Have a good SF Music Tech.  I’ll be off touring the UK.

Look who’s Pirating now! University Of Georgia Music Business Program’s Preliminary Study Of Advertising On Copyright Infringing Sites.

Jonathan Taplin at  USC’s  Annenberg Center has spent the last few month studying which parts of the online advertising ecosystem are delivering advertising (and hence revenue) to unlicensed music sharing and streaming sites.   His study has caused quite a stir in the advertising and entertainment industry.  Jonathan recently asked me to corroborate some of his findings regarding which brands are advertising on these websites. These are  the results of my preliminary survey.

Over two weeks in April  I had a group of students at UGA note which “brands” were advertising on a small set of sites that stream and distribute my own music without permission or compensation.  I chose sites that featured my own music for a very specific reason:  I could be 100% certain that they were exploiting my material without permission and were hence illegitimate sites.  Third party sources agree with my assessment. For instance The Google Transparency Report has all but 1 of these sites  in the top 200 recipients of DMCA takedown notices.

The purpose of the preliminary study  is not to identify how these advertisements end up on these infringing sites, but simply which brands are appearing on these sites.  We realize that brands often do not realize that their ads are appearing on these sites.   We hope this information is useful to advertisers, advertising agencies and the entertainment industry.  We believe along with artists the brands are also victimized by this practice because they are not geting the quality advertising for which they’ve contracted. And often their ads  appear next to unseemly videos and ads for adult and fetish sites thus damaging the image and reputation of the brands.  We encourage the listed brands to conduct audits of those responsible for placing these ads.  If it’s not possible for those responsible  to comply with an audit demand you should be aware that it is then highly likely that your ads will continue appearing on these sites!

Below I’ve listed the brands in two orders.  The first lists the brands by frequency, adjusted by a “breadth” coefficient. I will explain this breadth coefficient in subsequent post, but because of the way advertisers “track” web users,  the sheer number of a brand’s ads on a website can be somewhat misleading.   For instance ads for the apartment complex “River One” seemed to follow a single student the entire two weeks, but none of the other students recorded an ad from this company. This does not mean that “River One” isn’t in fact funding sites that exploit artists without compensation, it’s just a number of factors could be distorting their overall rankings.  Hence the breadth adjustment to dampen some of these effects.

In the following days  I’ll publish my rather simple  methodology and links to raw data.  Items that expose students identity will be redacted.

University Of Georgia Music Business Program Top 40 Brands Advertising On File Infringing Sites- Preliminary Survey (Breadth Adjustment):

Based on sample of 1,851 pageviews.

April 10-26 2013

rank Top Advertisers instances % “breadth” frequency adj for breadth
1 Country Financial 157 8.5% 100.00% 8.48%
2 Become.com 89 4.8% 100.00% 4.81%
3 AT&T 60 3.2% 100.00% 3.24%
4 Champion roofing 51 2.8% 100.00% 2.76%
5 State Farm 47 2.5% 75.00% 1.90%
6 Target 39 2.1% 87.50% 1.84%
7 Georgia Natural Gas 31 1.7% 100.00% 1.67%
8 AAA 29 1.6% 87.50% 1.37%
9 Rooms To Go 33 1.8% 62.50% 1.11%
10 Allstate 20 1.1% 100.00% 1.08%
11 Transunion 24 24 1.3% 75.00% 0.97%
12 H&R Block 18 1.0% 75.00% 0.73%
13 Pirate storm 26 1.4% 50.00% 0.70%
14 Quibids.com 13 0.7% 100.00% 0.70%
15 Coca-Cola/American Idol 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
16 The New York Times 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
17 One River Place (Atlanta GA) 94 5.1% 12.50% 0.63%
18 Progressive insurance 22 1.2% 50.00% 0.59%
19 Xfinity 15 0.8% 62.50% 0.51%
20 Nationwide 15 0.8% 50.00% 0.41%
21 Suntrust 14 0.8% 50.00% 0.38%
22 The Gold Coast Casino 11 0.6% 62.50% 0.37%
23 Norton 9 0.5% 62.50% 0.30%
24 Just fab boots 14 0.8% 37.50% 0.28%
25 Wartune 10 0.5% 50.00% 0.27%
26 Bing 5 0.3% 100.00% 0.27%
27 Dominos 15 0.8% 25.00% 0.20%
28 Karaolke Pink 28 1.5% 12.50% 0.19%
29 Charter 7 0.4% 50.00% 0.19%
30 Google chrome 12 0.6% 25.00% 0.16%
31 Sea World Busch Gardens 6 0.3% 50.00% 0.16%
32 Victoria’s Secret 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
33 Royal Carribean 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
34 Publix 7 0.4% 37.50% 0.14%
35 Dodge dart 20 1.1% 12.50% 0.14%
36 Bodies The Exhibtion 10 0.5% 25.00% 0.14%
37 The Heist 16 0.9% 12.50% 0.11%
38 HTC 5 0.3% 37.50% 0.10%
39 Pull-ups 5 0.3% 37.50% 0.10%
40 Spirit Airlines 5 0.3% 37.50% 0.10%

Unadjusted for “breadth.”

rank Top Advertisers instances % “breadth” frequency adj for breadth
1 Country Financial 157 8.5% 100.00% 8.48%
2 One River Place (Atlanta GA) 94 5.1% 12.50% 0.63%
3 Become.com 89 4.8% 100.00% 4.81%
4 AT&T 60 3.2% 100.00% 3.24%
5 Champion roofing 51 2.8% 100.00% 2.76%
6 State Farm 47 2.5% 75.00% 1.90%
7 Target 39 2.1% 87.50% 1.84%
8 Rooms To Go 33 1.8% 62.50% 1.11%
9 Georgia Natural Gas 31 1.7% 100.00% 1.67%
10 AAA 29 1.6% 87.50% 1.37%
11 Karaolke Pink 28 1.5% 12.50% 0.19%
12 Pirate storm 26 1.4% 50.00% 0.70%
13 Transunion 24 24 1.3% 75.00% 0.97%
14 Progressive insurance 22 1.2% 50.00% 0.59%
15 Allstate 20 1.1% 100.00% 1.08%
16 Dodge dart 20 1.1% 12.50% 0.14%
17 H&R Block 18 1.0% 75.00% 0.73%
18 Coca-Cola/American Idol 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
19 The New York Times 16 0.9% 75.00% 0.65%
20 The Heist 16 0.9% 12.50% 0.11%
21 Xfinity 15 0.8% 62.50% 0.51%
22 Nationwide 15 0.8% 50.00% 0.41%
23 Dominos 15 0.8% 25.00% 0.20%
24 Suntrust 14 0.8% 50.00% 0.38%
25 Just fab boots 14 0.8% 37.50% 0.28%
26 Quibids.com 13 0.7% 100.00% 0.70%
27 Google chrome 12 0.6% 25.00% 0.16%
28 lowermybills.com 12 0.6% 12.50% 0.08%
29 The Gold Coast Casino 11 0.6% 62.50% 0.37%
30 Victoria’s Secret 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
31 Royal Carribean 11 0.6% 25.00% 0.15%
32 Wartune 10 0.5% 50.00% 0.27%
33 Bodies The Exhibtion 10 0.5% 25.00% 0.14%
34 Norton 9 0.5% 62.50% 0.30%
35 Colorado tech 8 0.4% 12.50% 0.05%
36 Charter 7 0.4% 50.00% 0.19%
37 Publix 7 0.4% 37.50% 0.14%
38 Bruno Mars 7 0.4% 12.50% 0.05%
39 Sea World Busch Gardens 6 0.3% 50.00% 0.16%
40 Alzhiemer association 6 0.3% 25.00% 0.08%

The Underpants Gnomes. Pandora and the Return of the Internet Radio Fairness Act.

Gnomes_plan

(image courtesy Southpark)

In 1998 Southpark presciently lampooned the entire Dot Bomb bubble in an episode  called The Gnomes.  Essentially the Gnomes had a business plan:

Step One: Collect Underpants.

Step Two: ?

Step Three: Profit.

The excellent Seeking Alpha writer Stephen Faulkner last year  pointed out the similarities between Pandora’s business strategy and the Underpants Gnome’s business model.

However Pandora did eventually come up with a step 2.  It’s called the Internet Radio Fairness Act.   Basically this bill would ask the government to step in and mandate lower royalties to artists.   Essentially a bill that would largely benefit  ONE publicly traded company: Pandora  (although curiously Pandora terrestrial radio competitor Clear Channel is signed onto the bill along with Google,  what’s that about?,  Here is a wild guess. Pandora is for sale.)

So basically this is the Pandora Underpants Business Model:

Step 1 Collect Users

Step 2  Ask Congress to pass a bill that benefits a single private company , by mandating lower royalties to artists for Pandora.   Or perhaps more accurately Artists are forced by government  to subsidize Pandoras bad business model.

Step 3 Profit.   ( Stockholders cash out in sale to Clear Channel or Google?).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But here’s the thing.  The so called Internet Radio Fairness Act was shot down in Congress, largely due to grassroots efforts by artists.   But the rumour is the bill is coming back.   And I’m gonna make a fairly educated guess as to what changes are gonna be in the bill.

While at a social event in Washington DC a rather transparent aparatchik of the telecommunications industry suggested a couple changes to the bill that might possibly meet the approval of the artists.   Essentially it was this:

Why not lower Pandora’s royalties but give a larger percentage to the artists and less to the record labels.

Okay, so yeah I fucking fell off the turnip truck yesterday and that sounds like a really good deal! Sign me up!!

1).  If IRFA passed, royalties from Pandora could be cut 85%.  Even if artists got 100% of the royalties  and record labels got zero we’d still take a whopping paycut of 70%.

2) Like most artists nowadays I own my own “masters” .  That is,  essentially I am the record company.   Most independent artists are their own record labels.  Therefore for the vast majority of artists this is exactly the same paycut and  amounts to the  Internet Radio Fairness Coalition saying “Artists are stupid and they’ll never catch on”.

(Ladies/Guys: after surviving in the music business for 30 years it should be a assumed that I have a finely tuned bullshit detector.)

So I’m gonna take a wild guess here:

The Internet Radio Fairness Act comes back next month with exactly this change.  They think they are gonna be able to divide us from record labels. Not realizing that most artists are the record labels. A divide and conquer strategy. Let’s hope I’m not right. But just in case.  Be ready.

Once Again Techdirt Has Nothing Intelligent To Say So They Just Resort To Mocking Musicians for Being from “Crappy Town” in Southwest Virginia.

Why does anyone take Techdirt seriously? How are  Techdirt writers any different than your typical cyberbullies and trolls on some abusive reddit thread?   Editor Mike Masnick has repeatedly made the  claim (unsupported by the objective facts) that he is on the side of musicians, especially those independent musicians that are trying to make it outside of the major label system.  Yet when a group of independent musicians working outside the major label system from a relatively poor but culturally rich region of Southwest Virginia take a position that he doesn’t like?   His blog (which is based in the  wealthy elitist  cultural wasteland of Silicon Valley) resorts to mocking these artists for being from some “crappy” part of America.  I quote the subtitle of the article:

“from the we-gotta-go-to-the-crappy-town-where-i’m-a-hero! dept”

Unfortunately this is the way that Techdirt and Masnick ALWAYS operate.  The idea is that through mocking and name calling they will intimidate into silence  these particular musicians – and any others  thinking of  joining them. That’s what he did to Lily Allen. That’s what he has repeatedly tried to do to me (to the point it’s beginning to resemble cyberstalking).

Ultimately Masnick et al are not really for freedom of speech. They are anti-democratic and elitist at heart. Over and over again we’ve watched he and his writers stir up and allow a frenzy of name calling and ugly threats in the comment section at Techdirt. He rarely seem to  moderate offensive, slanderous or threatening comments.  It’s a hatefest by design. Intimidate and silence.  It’s like lord of the flies over there. Few people understand that this seems to be the point of Techdirt. Not the poorly written articles but the manipulation of an ignorant and hateful mob in the comments section.  These are the freehadist foot soldiers that spread this hatred elsewhere on the web.

Now Masnick and Techdirt aren’t always trying to stifle all speech. Just speech they don’t like.  For instance when it comes to criminal conspiracies started by “Keep Sweden Swedish” rich extremist xenophobes who exploit artists without compensation (The Pirate Bay)  Masnick et al are quick to find common cause with them on some far fetched “freedom of speech” or “censorship”  grounds. But ordinary US citizens from the Southwestern Virginia Songwriters Association get a very different treatment.  These songwriters apparently had the gall to say something that might-barely-possibly-slightly threaten the power,influence and profits of Masnick’s powerful Silicon Valley sponsors.  So right on cue Techdirt resorts to name calling and  attempts to create viral mockery. Because usually this silences artists.  IMHO the silicon valley demagogues that make up the writing staff of Techdirt are just the cowardly cyber versions of the fascists of old who used  mobs to intimidate dissidents into silence (or worse). Make no mistake that’s what they are methodically attempting to do here: silencing critics.  Sure the mob is virtual  but it’s still a mob.

And I for one do  not use the term fascist lightly.  But sadly in this case the comparison applies. Check it out. Techdirt is the place where these pathetic little Gollums go to feel important and “part of a group” by treating others cruelly.  To feel superior than those ignorant “others.”  Those people from “crappy towns.” Those “bad” people who are threatening “our”  internet way of life.   Masnick has created a safe place for these writers to dehumanize and deligitimize others by insinuating they are not “real” and therefore much easier to treat disgracefully. I quote from the story:

“members of the Southwest Virginia Songwriters Association Seriously? That’s a thing?”

“So congratulations, Songwriters Association of Wherever.”

There can’t possibly be songwriters in Southwestern Virginia!  These people aren’t real, therefore treat them as non-humans.

You don’t even have to read between the lines to conclude this. Just read the comments, Masnick’s Vulgus technoridicae do it for you.

You got to wonder what is wrong with this particular writer that chose  to join team Masnick.  Did he dream his whole life of working for a blog that methodically mocked the weak and powerless on behalf of the rich and powerful? Was that his goal in life?

And what about the trillion dollar internet industry that is so chicken-shit afraid of a handful of musicians petitioning their elected representative  that they seemingly fund people like Masnick to specifically  go after ordinary citizens expressing opinions that they find inconvenient.  See the Google vs Oracle Amended Shill List.

But here is the funny part.  Despite suffering from high self esteem Masnick and his writers are completely inept and  spectacularly ignorant. They’ve probably caused more problems for their cause/paymasters than they have prevented.  Follow along:

The subtext of the Techdirt piece is this:

Bad musicians from  some backwoods part of America that unlike the technology industry doesn’t deserve to be represented in the corridors of power in washington DC.

IGNORANT:

1)The music of  Southwestern Virginia and the Southern Appalachians is the root of much of modern American music.  Bands selling out Red Rocks, The Fillmore, Madison Square Garden this summer are playing songs that originate in this region. And it’s not just obvious mountain, folk and country blues music that originate from this region. Acts like  Sparklehorse, and  Those Darlins have roots here.  Masnick and his staff are totally ignorant  of this easily googled fact.

2) This region is home to some of the most popular and longest running music festivals in the US.  Everything from The Floydfest to The Galax Fiddler Convention. Each summer hundreds of thousands of people trek here from all over the world for the dozens of music festivals.  Again google it.  Look at those links.  You might be surprised if you think music festivals in this region are  just mountain fiddling and enormously popular country stars.

One would assume Goodlatte and his staff have pride in the musical heritage of Southwestern Virginia.

INEPT

3) The Congressman, Bob Goodlatte, the head of the Judiciary Committee represents many of the “crappy towns” in Southwest Virginia right?  During hearings earlier this year Rep Goodlatte asked Maria Pallante  from the Copyright Office “Why is the debate over copyright so polarized?”  This is why the debate is so polarized! Blogs like Techdirt that  refer to his district as a “crappy town” and the only place he could possibly “be a hero!”

This is how it reads in the district of the very powerful  House Judiciary Chairman:

Elitist  Northern Californian Liberals making fun of Southwestern Virginia as an unimport region of “crappy towns” and unintelligent people.

If Google or the CCIA are still paying Masnick, they really are not getting their money’s worth.  Or maybe they are, who knows.

Artists Give Madison Ave and American Eagle Outfitters a Lesson in Messaging. Meanwhile Ghost Beach Gets Buried.

Last week we covered the strange and divisive “Artists Vs Artists” campaign brought to you by   American Eagle Outfitters and Madison Avenue firm TBWA Chiat Day.  In case you’ve been in a cave for the last week this consisted of four story high LED billboards on the front of the American Eagle Outfitters store in Time Square.  On these billboards provocative slogans like “Piracy is Freedom” and “Piracy Is Our Generation”  were displayed. The related (Chiat Day registered and owned) website  www.artistsvsartists.com mirrored the campaign.

Now as reported by Adland.tv and Digital Music News an anonymous group of artists has responded with their own campaign.  “Artists VS American Eagle Outfitters.”  The campaign parodies the original site and recycles the same “conversation starting statements”  except  “Piracy”  is replaced with “Shoplifting From American Eagle Outfitters.”  The fake twitter comments are a must read!

Screen Shot 2013-04-02 at 6.39.50 PM

Overlooked in all of this has been  the fact was that this campaign was partial compensation for the band Ghost Beach.  The band had earlier supplied a song for an American Eagle promotion. American Eagle paid the band back by giving them the billboard space.  In theory this billboard campaign was supposed to generate sales for Ghost Beach.

 Personally I have empathy for the band.  They are just trying to make a name for themselves in a very difficult time. But as usual when the artist’s agenda meets the corporate agenda the artist always gets buried.  The band has become a footnote to the story.  Despite some chatter in the tech blog echo chamber we can objectively conclude the campaign has generated little real engagement for Ghost Beach.

Screen Shot 2013-04-02 at 6.33.43 PM

Above  are publicly available metrics for Ghost Beach’s social media activity.  In this case facebook likes. The big spike you see is generated by Ghost Beach’s touring activity on the west coast.   On the right the solid line indicates the duration of the  $50,000 Times Sq Billboard campaign which appears to have generated almost nothing for the artist

Younger acts don’t often don’t want  advice from legacy artists like myself, but I’m gonna give them my two cents anyway:  Touring is the most reliable way to engage fans and sell music. One wonders what $50,000 worth of tour promotion  and support from American Eagle Outfitters  would have done for the artist?

It is also rarely mentioned that the band itself Ghost Beach is Anti-Piracy.  In a thoughtful statement the band clearly states on it’s website:

 “In no way do we want to encourage theft of intellectual property.”

Whatever one thinks of this campaign, this fact has been lost in the story.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The other metrics generally agree. SoundCloud spins for Ghost Beach.  To be fair there looks to be a small bump up  after NY Times article which was clearly the result of the billboard campaign. 

Screen Shot 2013-04-02 at 9.49.14 PM

YouTube Views are always very “noisy” but this is  trending down slightly.  But I still like YouTube views cause they are now harder to manipulate then SoundCloud. 

Screen Shot 2013-04-02 at 9.49.30 PM

Twitter may show a spike almost as big as the one generated by their touring activity. But the twitter followers start from a very low number.  So the spikes are a daily gain of a little over 30 twitter followers.  Also after looking at the actual tweets it seems like this spike is just before the start of the  billboard campaign and is more likely the result of their SXSW live showcase.

Screen Shot 2013-04-02 at 9.53.43 PM

Madison Avenue Firm TWBA Chiat Day Runs Pro-Piracy Billboards In Times Square. Is this Payback For Calling Them Out on Ad Supported Piracy?

As we have detailed here many many times on The Trichordist,  the advertising industry profits by selling advertising to pirate sites like www.webgalu.com.   But we were  mightily surprised to see advertising firm  TBWA Chiat Day,  apparently doubling down and actually running billboards in Times Square that say things like “Piracy is Progress”.   I can see why they think it’s “progress” if they profit from this exploitative practice.  Here at The Trichordist we have repeatedly called out companies that TBWA Chiat Day lists as their clients for advertising on these sites–and we know in some cases the complaints went up the flagpole.

That is why we ask:

 Is this some sort of Ad-Agency-Gone-Cowboy payback scheme?  We’re open to other explanations, but the “PIRACY IS PROGRESS” campaign seems to us to be both straight out of Orwell’s 1984 and retaliatory against the many brand sponsored piracy efforts.

Especially since another aspect of this campaign is a highly manipulative and cynical attempt to pit artists against artists.  

Examples of companies that TBWA Chiat Day claims as clients that we spotted also advertising on pirate sites:

bk_mp3boonissan

lyrics007-adele-pepsi

adele-rolling-in-the-deep1