Music industry loses a decade

Mark Evans and Mike Arrington point out how the music labels have blown it and lost a decade trying to counter the digital medium. The latest is a call for a music tax that would be applied to ISP bills to raise what looks like as much as $20 billion.

It is frustrating to see an industry that is so blind and unwilling to listen to it's customers. The reality is these labels are focused on selling a medium of plastic (CDs) and not music. What consumers are asking for is accessibility, choice and convenience at a fair price. Going down to the local CD store doesn't fit any of these requirements.

Digital access provides a great opportunity for distribution of music which has been proven times over. Consumers do not find value in plastic disks. I have no problem throwing away a CD but hold dearly a number of vinyl albums as part of the value was the sleeve, notes and art work. This has never translated well into the CD world.

On the video (DVD) side, Blockbuster is obvious dead or at least dying quick and companies like NetFlix are responding to the consumer and running with the opportunity to provide accessibility, choice and convenience at a fair price. To be fair, a core difference is that you typically watch a movie once or twice and listen to music time and time again.  Though I believe there may be a happy medium between the two. 

The NetFlix model illustrates that consumers are willing to pay a reasonable price for media content with some restrictions. In the case of video it's typically $10 - $20 per month for unlimited rentals with the restriction of 1 to 3 DVD's at any given point. And they even take care of shipping costs.

Provide me access to an unlimited library of music at comparable rates (as those above) and I'd be will to have some restrictions such as a reasonable number of songs. I really don't need 60GB on an iPod to hold an entire library of music when I can be running around with a few gigs of music that I am listening to and can refresh/update any time that I want. Better yet, work out a deal with Apple, you can monitor my usage on my playlists, frequency, download activity. Now why would I be willing to provide this information? I have no problems providing this if a portion of the proceeds are distributed to the musicians in proportionate royalties. Isn't this not far off what DJ's pay royalties for? Shouldn't organizations like ASCAP take hold of this opportunity?

Restricting distribution of music doesn't do anyone any good. Get the music out there and lower the cost and risk of checking out a new band, track, or genre and I am sure that the end result is a better deal and chance for the artists.

Cardboard box

When is the last time you had a good laugh like this?

Chances are it doesn't happen often enough. Kids have a real ability to be genuine. There is something to be said about 'keeping it simple'.

It may not have been a sheet of paper, but I remember some of my favorite toys ended up being the cardboard box.

My kids (4 and 7) have a Wii, iPods, too many cars and dolls, but still their favorite toys end up being some paper, brush and paint. The reason is simple, we just forget what it is.

What's wrong with Canadian politics?

Why is it that Canadians are generally more interested in U.S politics than in Canadian politics. There seems to be a genuine interest in the Obama and Clinton saga and on a daily basis I hear more on these two than I hear about any Canadian politician during any period - even during election time.

Obama and Clinton are both strong characters, well spoken and passionate about what they do and I am sure that the U.S. will be better off with either one of them. There isn't a bad choice - just a preference.

Sure Canada has it's own political debates though no one ever remembers them and the run is never very exciting. In fact, most people (Canadians and others) often have difficulty naming the current Canadian Prime Minister (correct - we don't have a president). For those still wondering, it is Stephen Harper.  

Maybe it is related to the fact that internationally Canada shadows the U.S. as the friendly neighbor up north. Maybe it's the fact that we Canadians don't have any real country dividing issues. The referendum is probably the closest thing we've had to excitement but even that was short lived. I believe the reality is that Canadian politicians have trouble finding that great dividing debate and focus on the same boring issues. Sure we have good health care and that it could be better, the economy is good, but it could be better. I'm just waiting for Canada to get a really dynamic and passionate leader. Does Harper connect with Canadians? Does Obama or Clinton? You make the call.

So for the time being, I would like to nominate Stompin Tom Connors for Canada's Presidency. There probably isn't anyone that connects and relates with Canadian more than he does. Just listen to his unofficial Canadian anthem. (and for your reference, here is the official one).

Cross Canada VC Roundtables

Rick Segal is running a series of cross Canada VC roundtables. If you are an entrepreneur in Canada, this is a great opportunity to ask your questions and participate in some good discussion. Each session is for 25 so it's a great opportunity for anyone who can make it / get in.

Mr. Bailey the Weimaraner

So on Tuesday we got a new pup - Bailey - he's a 3 month old Weimaraner. He's a beautiful dog and sure is a handful, but that's half the fun. I'll definitely be providing updates.

Weimaraners are well know for their beautiful eyes and often referred to as the "Grey Ghost" or "Silver Ghost" due to their silver/gray color.

How has your search changed?

With the recent excitement around Google's ad and search performance, I would like to take a moment and ask everyone how has their search changed? This goes back to my old rant about metrics and how clicks, or searches for that matter, are only an indicator for online activity. Metrics once again need to be taken with context.

I am of course generalizing to some extent and am reflecting probably what would be a small proportion number of users, but never less, I think think these niche groups are quite important. Take for example myself and a number of my peers. We are generally 30+, spend a lot of time online, we read/blog, twitter etc.

The reality is I use google for searching a lot less than I used to. There are a number of reasons for this. For one, the quality of content and a few core publishers is a lot more mature and Google has become much better at linking to these. Take for example Wikipedia. Search for just about anything on Google and chances are you'll get a wikipedia link result or two. In many ways, Wikipedia has become a reliable go-to place for information on general 'stuff'. So depending on the type of information I am looking for, often Wikipedia is my first choice, not to mention many of the external links found on each article.

We also get a lot of content through means other than just search. This includes via RSS, Twitter, email alerts and others. Instead of clicking on some ad or doing a search, I have a much higher likelihood of clicking on a link posted on Twitter (thanks to TinyURL).

As individuals we are also getting much better at organizing information. Between Del.icio.us, various online wiki services, online tools such as Highrise and Basecamp, we are much better and cataloging and retrieving our online data. Much of the information passed around an organization is done efficiently through a wiki or chat service like Campfire. Sure someone may have found an interesting link through a traditional search, but the click result may be 5 , 10 or more through one of these other community services and not through search. Facebook is an obvious one so I won't even comment on it.

In the end, I'm not suggesting that search is dead or declining, just that it is changing. Do you recall the days when WebCralwer was the go-to place? I don't have any real metrics to verify what I am saying but I can bet that I'm not far off. I would be delighted if instead of publishing numbers about clicks, searches and views, that the online metrics companies would start providing some of these more interesting metrics. 

For the same reasons, nor can I validate the change in my search and click behavior, after all my peer group is unlikely to install a tracking toolbar, download a screensaver or take a survey for 500 survey points. These are just my general observations. As for Google, while my search activity has declined, inversely my Google use/reach is much much higher through the use of Gmail, RSS Reader, Google Documents, Google Earth etc.

So if you ask me who is doing all the searching, clicking and surveys? Chances it is your mom who just got a new Dell and upgraded from AOL.

Professional survey respondent recruitment on Facebook

OK. There is no doubt that Facebook has great potential for marketing research, though one thing that I am not very fond of is survey and panel recruitment that just asks for the professional survey taker. In the market research world, a professional survey respondent is an individual who takes numerous surveys primarily for the monetary incentive offered. In some circles these individuals may belong to multiple email panels, take 10+ surveys per day, tend to be young, women, and can speed through a survey rather quickly. These individuals ARE NOT representative of the online population.

The professional survey respondent is becoming a real problem in the online research world, and seems to fit the same profile as the heavy ad clickers. There are many efforts made to minimize the impacts of these respondents, identify them, clean them out of valid research, and is a real threat to all the legitimate panels and research work that is being done.

This is why is burns me when I see recruitment methods such as the one I recently encountered on Facebook. Research is all about methodology and rigor. The ad displayed here is an example where poor research rigor is being exercised. A benefit of advertising on Facebook is supposed to be the ability to target based on profile parameters. Am I incorrect? If so, someone please correct me. Making an assumption that I am correct, this type of ad should not be necessary? Unfortunately this methodology opens up any individual, particularly the professional survey respondent to respond in what some call the Sally-Bob syndrome. That is, today I can take a survey as Sally, and tomorrow as Bob. So if you want to make some money - maybe you'll get $10, chance to win $10,000 or 500 survey points, join a panel with your hotmail address and make sure you fill your profile out as being male, over 35, and while you are at it, making $150,000+ in an executive position.

I assume no ill intent in this advertisement, but it is the responsibility for everyone in the research, marketing, and advertising community to be aware of the limitations to some recruitment methods, their potential risk, and the reality of the professional respondent.

Unfortunately, for the online community there haven't been many options outside of the traditional 2,000,000 member e-mail panel and is in part a function of a lack of alternatives . . . .  that is for the time being.

Transparency in metrics

Online site metrics are very problematic and cause great debate and discussion. This is partly because of varying methodologies, the lack of some understanding of concepts, methods and interpretation. Though what is often overlooked as a real contributor to this conflict is a lack of transparency.

Online site metrics are very much like online email panels as used by the market research industry. There is much controversy over the quality of panels, the practice in how they are used, and the methodology on how they are recruited. Generally research email panels hold a dark reality that many know of or suspect, but since there isn't a true alternative (or at least a transparent one yet), the industry has to make do with what it has. 

For everyone's sake, be transparent in what you do, how you do it, and why.  In terms of web analytics, Michael Arrington makes a great call to open Google Analytics completely and notes how "transparency is a good way to gain the trust of the community".

Believe it or not but sharing of data helps stimulate activity and more and more, secrecy around data metrics raises suspicion that something is being hidden. Praise to Quantcast and GetSatisfaction who are, both in their own ways, helping to open up data and make it public. 

There is definitely a place for panels but the reality is that whether it is an email panel, a web metrics panel or any other, their job will only get tougher as data becomes available more and more on a public basis - that is unless they can too become more transparent.

What do you have to hide anyway?

Enough of the Google / comScore fiasco

There's been plenty written about the hit Google took, partly as a result of the numbers released by comScore. Enough in fact that I don't care to link to any of the reports or numbers. I believe in part it has been an over-reaction to comScore's numbers so for everyone who's been crying the demise of Google - shame on you. And for those who jumped to conclusions on what comScore's numbers meant - you should know better.

Any metrics without consideration of context may lead to misinterpretations - as it obviously did in this fiasco. Few take the time to understand methodologies used by companies like comScore, Compete, and others. Even if you have no idea about their methodologies and take their reports as gospel, when reading these reports, forget about the stats and ask yourself "does this make sense and why".  Panels, and most metrics for that matter, make a number of statistical assumptions which in most part we can live with. Panels in particular by their nature have a number of inherit bias' to them and by using statistical methods, estimate and project numbers. 

I believe there is a great deal of responsibility on individuals and organizations reporting numbers, particularly when they may have an economic impact. Did comScore's latest blog posting come across a bit of an 'oops'? Possibly, but I believe this was a lesson to them that they have a responsibility to keep their metrics in context. While it is not common for them to comment on particular market impacts beyond what the numbers say, I was happy to see they took the opportunity to explain what fewer clicks may mean. Though I am sure it being Google had something to do with it.

I am tired of seeing headlines of clicks, impressions and page views declining. These are poor metrics at most.

I just wonder considering the punch Google stock took, what will the impact be on SCOR?