Escaping the Internet Commodity Trap

by Rowan Gibson

The Internet is like a black hole that relentlessly sucks in, digitizes and democratizes content of every kind. While that may be generally good news for consumers (hey, look at all the great stuff we can now get for free), it has turned out to be unbelievably bad news for the content providers. Ask anyone in the print media business, or the music business, or the movie business. For at least the last decade, industries that primarily produce content have been struggling hard to find a viable new financial model in a world where internet users (particularly the young generation) don't expect to pay for anything they read, listen to, or watch. As one popular mantra puts it: "Content is no longer king". The fact is, content distribution is now king. Power has shifted to the content aggregators - think Google, YouTube, Digg.com or iTunes - and to new media platforms like Amazon's Kindle reader or the Apple iPad. So how exactly are content providers supposed to make money in an era of rampant digital commoditization? The only option they have left is to innovate like never before; to reinvent their industry business models before they become obsolete.

I remember talking to Kevin Kelly, co-founder of Wired magazine, back in 1995 about the future of the Web. He told me he viewed the Internet as a "planetary-sized copying machine" and added that "trying to stop copying on the Net is impossible." Indeed, within a week of my latest book "Innovation to the Core" being published in Chinese, there were at least two websites in China offering a digital version of the book for illegal download. Consumers clearly win - why buy the physical book when you can get the digital file for free? But in terms of book sales and royalties, the author (i.e. me!) and the publishers lose out entirely.

That's why the book publishing industry is feverishly exploring a variety of new business models. One option is to sell eBooks direct to customers, cutting out middlemen like distributors and retailers, and building a community around the books and authors. Since eBooks have a relatively low price tag, the hope is that consumers will be willing to pay for the genuine article (a la iTunes) rather than download an illegal copy, especially if it comes with social-media-enabled tools that help them discuss and share the book with others. Another option is to make the eBook itself a richer multimedia experience (with audio, video, hyperlinks and so forth) rather than just a text-based medium. Instead of embedding all of these media in a single digital file (which would still be relatively easy to copy and distribute illegally), publishers could give consumers a code when they purchase the book that offers exclusive access to a dynamic, integrated online application environment.

A similar challenge faces today's music business. Over the last decade, music labels, retailers, and the artists themselves have seen their revenues fall off a cliff in an era when teenagers can - and do - get all the music they want for free. Last year, 95% of music downloads were still from illegal file-sharing sites. And although Apple is now the world's biggest music retailer, its iTunes store has never been a massive revenue producer. Instead, it simply serves as a provider of low-cost content for the iPod, helping to drive sales of Apple's premium-priced music player. So far, the latest trend - cloud-based, streaming music sites like Spotify, Rhapsody and Pandora - has not been very helpful to the music industry either. Until now, these sites have employed a free-to-users, ad-supported model which doesn't generate much money for the labels or the artists. As an example, it's estimated that a million plays of Lady Gaga's popular song "Poker Face" on Spotify only earned her a paltry $167.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about the artists because most of them make their money these days on concert revenue and merchandising, not on the sale of recordings. And since people go to live concerts to hear artists performing songs they already know, it's actually in the artists' interests to have their music distributed as widely as possible, even if it's for free, in order to generate a lot of fans. Yet what about the music labels? How can they possibly compete against free downloads? Only by finding innovative new ways to add value. That's what MusicDNA is all about. It's a new digital file format that contains not just music but additional content such as lyrics, images and interesting info like interviews, tour schedules, or updates to the artists' social network pages. Anyone who downloads the file illegally would miss out on all these extras. So MusicDNA offers hope that the industry can open up new revenue streams. It may also point the way forward for Hollywood studios as they look for ways to battle illegal movie downloads.

Another victim of the Internet commodity trap has been the traditional news media industry. According to a new survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, more Americans now get their news from the Internet than from newspapers, and three-fourths say they primarily learn of news via updates on social media sites like Twitter. So as readers (closely followed by advertisers) make a mass exodus from print to digital media, 'The Press' as we know it seems to be going the way of the dinosaur. In the face of mounting bankruptcies, mass layoffs and plunging advertising sales, some publishers have already thrown in the towel. As an example, McGraw-Hill recently signaled their despair by selling off BusinessWeek at the bargain basement price of less than $5 million.

So is there any hope for this ailing industry? Some think it might still be possible to go back to the old 'paid content' model. Rupert Murdoch, illustrious media mogul of News Corporation, has been making headlines over the last year with his plans to erect a pay wall around his media. And, if it works, others will almost certainly follow. An analogy could be the advent of cable TV in the 1960s and 1970s. At first, very few believed that anyone would be willing to actually pay for TV shows and movies after spending decades watching them for free. But today the average household in North America pays about $50 a month for Pay-TV, so why shouldn't the same principle work for the Internet? There is also new hope on the horizon in the form of emerging digital media platforms like Kindle and Apple iPad, that promise to bring fresh revenues to the news industry by charging readers to access publications in an exciting new way.

Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, has co-founded a company called Journalism Online to help newspapers find new payment models. These range from micropayments - where readers pay for individual stories - to "freemium" models like the one used by the Financial Times, where readers can view 10 free pages every 30 days.

One of Rupert Murdoch's properties, The Wall Street Journal already charges readers US$119 a year for an online subscription. The WSJ is also experimenting with a new kind of media mix that takes it beyond the written word. Last September, its Digital Group rolled out News Hub, a twice-daily video news series. In January The Wall Street Journal Network delivered a record 5.5 million streams, with about a million or so views being generated by News Hub. This February the group launched Digits, a video series focused on technology which streams live each weekday, and plans are now in the works for several other original live series.

As whole industries see their traditional business models sucked into the Internet commodity trap, their only hope of escape has become radical innovation. For content providers of every stripe, success and survival in the future will be based on the ability to fundamentally rethink, re-imagine and reinvent themselves by innovating around who they serve, what they provide, how they provide it, how they make money, and how they differentiate from the rest. Stewart Brand's maxim may have famously stated that "information wants to be free", which is at the heart of utopian Internet democracy, but the cold reality is that every business has to make money. That means that whether you produce books, newspapers, magazines, music, movies or TV shows, somebody somewhere has to pay somehow. Figuring out who that could be - and how the financial model would work - is one the greatest business battles of our age.


Related Articles - "Content is No Longer King" - Part 1 - Part 2 - by Stephen Shapiro


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Rowan Gibson is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on enterprise innovation. He is co-author of the bestseller "Innovation to the Core" and a much in-demand public speaker around the globe. On Twitter he is @RowanGibson.

Will Apple Introduce the Innovation Expected from Google?

by Braden Kelley

Some great conversations have sprung up around my previous articles on the rumored Apple Tablet (iSlate). In the past I focused on what innovation Apple's potential tablet device might offer and whether or not Apple is likely to make the rumored first year sales projection of 10 million units.

A recent comment from "Marketing Department" brought up the topic of subsidies and whether or not Apple might be on the verge of introducing another business model innovation. So, in this article we'll dig a little deeper into that possibility.

When Apple launched the iPod, they introduced the iTunes business model innovation which turned the music industry on ear, quickly followed by the television and movie industries. Then Apple launched the iPhone and introduced the App Store business model innovation and introduced a new way for people to purchase software that the competition quickly rushed to copy. Now, what could Apple create with a Tablet device?

Well, obviously the App Store and iTunes will be present on this new device, and the iTunes Store will likely be extended to cover books, newspapers, and magazines. An extension of the iTunes Store is more of an incremental innovation. So what disruptive business model innovation could Apple do that would catch the competition off-balance?

Well, in my mind, Apple could very well launch the business model innovation that I expected to come with Google's Nexus One smartphone (but didn't) - shifting the subsidy model.

Currently, when a customer buys the Google Nexus One or the Apple iPhone, the mobile service provider subsidizes the cost of the device by about $325 in exchange for a 2-year contract from the customer. This ties the customer to the carrier for two years (and usually longer). I was expecting the Nexus One launch to include an unlocked phone that Google themselves subsidized in one way or another. One way could have been to pay the customer to use the phone on whatever carrier they wished by depositing money every month in a Google Checkout account based on ad views. This did not happen.

But Apple could take this idea one step further. Not only are they moving into the advertising game with some of their recent acquisitions, but they already have the incredible reach and product offerings provided by the iTunes Store and the App Store. While several people expect any Apple Tablet (iSlate) to have a retail price of $800-$1,000, a mobile carrier subsidy might bring it down into the $500-700 range. Might not Apple then be willing to subsidize it even further based on expected future media and content sales to push the price down into the $300-500 range and make it cost competitive with netbooks and the Amazon Kindle?

After all, Apple makes money (or could make money) in a number of different ways after the device purchase:

1. Applications (Downloads, In-App Advertising, In-App Purchases)
2. Media (Music, Movies, Television)
3. Books and Textbooks
4. Subscriptions (Music Streaming, Movie Downloads, Newspapers, Magazines, TV)
5. Advertising (TBD)
6. MobileMe

You could look at this very much like HP and their ink cartridge business. But how much of a subsidy could Apple offer?

Well, some limited data I found indicates that from this particular data set that the average iTunes transaction is $7 and an average of three transactions per month are made. That would equate to about $21 per month or $250 per year. So, what if you add in games, applications, and other content?

To keep the calculations easy let's say that the $250 becomes $500 when other kinds of content are added in, and using Apple's 30% revenue share, that would give an estimate of $150 per year per user. Yes, I know this is highly simplified, and from a small dataset, but we're just imagining possibilities not doing financial forecasts.

From this point, you could go two ways, look at this as a customer lock-in possibility for Apple and a potential perpetuity, or look at a fixed device life. Again, because this is only illustrative let's simplify and say that over four years Apple might expect (using this data) to earn $600 in revenue per device (excluding advertising revenue) and if Apple decided to dedicate 25% of this revenue to a subsidy, they could allocate $150 to bring down the cost of the device and the rest to go towards costs and profits. Throw in some advertising revenue for good measure, and maybe it makes sense for Apple to subsidize this new device by the $200 that might be necessary to bring the price to customer down into the $300-$500 sweet spot.

But how much of this revenue is incremental revenue? Will the device be an incremental purchase (an additional device people buy), or will it replace a Macbook, iMac, iPhone, or iPod purchase? Would it really make sense to do this?

Hopefully these quick and crude calculations have helped you to see why Apple might consider launching their own subsidy with their rumored tablet device (iSlate, iPad, iCanvas, iTablet, Macbook Slate, etc.) and why they might not. It will be rather interesting to see what they do...


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Innovation Perspectives - Cash, Plastic or Free?

This is the first of several 'Innovation Perspectives' articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?'. So to kick it off, here is my perspective:

by Braden Kelley

There are lots of industries that are desperate for innovation, especially in this recession, but my choice is the publishing industry. First let me say that far too often the publishing industry is too narrowly defined as relating to the publishing of books. Or, if it is thought of in a more holistic manner, then it is still spoken about in terms of its isolated silos - books, magazines, newspapers, music, software, etc.

Yet what is the publishing industry but a group of businesses that make their living distributing the work of "artists" to the masses. And no matter which of these silos you choose to read about, you'll come across stories of their pending demise (even software). Taken at face value, the publishing industries are facing an apocalypse and should be desperate for innovation - and they are...

Recently I came across an article talking about how now instead of paying 99 cents a song as on iTunes, users will be able to download and listen to the music they want for free after watching a 15- to 30-second advertisement at sites like FreeAllMusic.com. As a concept, advertising-supported music you can share is not new. It used to be done with the radio and a cassette recorder, but now it is possible for downloads and sharing and social media to all be combined together. For a music industry struggling against piracy, it needs to innovate further in areas like this.

The magazine industry is shrinking at an accelerating rate with magazines like Business 2.0 (one of my favorites) closing up shop, and rumors swirling about Newsweek possibly disappearing as well. Two newspaper towns are becoming one newspaper towns and the art of the newspaper business (feature stories and investigative journalism) is quickly being replaced in the dailies by more stories off the wire.

Both newspapers and magazines are hoping that devices like the Amazon Kindle, Barnes and Noble's Nook, and their own e-reader creations will save them. Some magazines are getting a little more creative. National Geographic is offering their entire archive on a portable hard disk, and Sports Illustrated is preparing for the new generation of rumored slate computers with a new interactive format.

The book industry is coping with the fact that on Christmas Day, for the first time in history, Amazon sold more digital books than paper books, and also with Google's designs on digitizing every book they legally can. So, as you can see all of the silos in the publishing industry are desperate for innovation.

But what does the future hold for the publishing industry?

If you watch the embedded video in my Apple Tablet Sneak Preview article, or if you watch the embedded video of Coursesmart's offering in my Microsoft-Apple-Google in Tablet Battle article, I think you'll get a sense of where things are going and the kinds of innovation that the publishing industry silos will need to consider.

The bottom line is that when people start carrying around high-definition multimedia devices with them that are always connected to the Internet, then the boundaries between different media types are going to feel artificial. Customers will flock to more integrated content.

This will require companies delivering information or entertainment solutions to customers to innovate new partnerships and deal structures, new business models, and new product and service offerings to better meet customers' quickly evolving entertainment and education expectations. Industry structures and silos are about to be transformed.

So, what kind of publishing industry innovations can you imagine in this new world?


You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on 'What product or sector is in desperate need of innovation?' by clicking the link in this sentence.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

The Participation Economy - Part 2

by Kevin Roberts

I like to think of good ideas having a theme song. For the 'Participation Economy' maybe it would be "Come Together" by The Beatles. But the manifestation of that spirit and energy has to be embodied by the current world tour by U2. It's a lesson in participation with scale.

Stadium shows of yesterday were known to have poor sound quality and a vast distance between the performers and the rest of the crowd. But U2 wanted to innovate on that model and create something awe-inspiring.

U2 play upon a 164 foot tall stage positioned in the middle of a packed audience, nearly 70,000 strong. Bono says to the audience: "We built this spaceship to get closer to you." It's the biggest concert stage ever built, has no defined front or back and is surrounded on all sides by the audience. The stage design also includes a cylindrical video screen and will increase the venues' capacities by about 15-20%. "The band is just sitting in the palm of the audience's hand," said Designer Willie Williams.

Mark Fisher, Design Architect for the U2 Tour, spoke about the set: "The inspiration was to make a set that was as intimate as we could make it in a stadium. So everybody in the stadium feels like they're real close to the band and the band feels like they're real close to everybody in the stadium."

After the crowd sang along to "With Or Without You," Bono had everyone hold up and wave their cellphones in the air saying "Turn this place into the Milky Way."

One recent Chicago concert-goer blogged, "Once again it was a spiritual moment. There's a vibe you can't articulate."

In an era of declining CD sales, the tour is expected to be a major source of income for the band. About 2.5 million people will see this current leg of the tour. And for anyone curious by all the massive trucks carrying the heavy stage around, U2 will, it seems, purchase carbon offsets to take into consideration the environmental impact of the massive production, which has been estimated to be up to 65,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide; approximately the same amount that would be emitted in flying a passenger plane to Mars.

To read Part 1 of the 'Participation Economy' by Kevin Roberts - click here.

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Managing Innovation is about Managing Change

by Braden Kelley

Innovation is about change. Companies that successfully innovate in a repeatable fashion have one thing in common - they are good at managing change. Now, change comes from many sources, but when it comes to innovation, the main sources are incremental innovation and disruptive innovation.

The small changes from incremental innovation often come from the realm of implementation, so the organization, customers, and other stakeholders can generally adapt. However, the large changes generated by disruptive innovation, often come from the imagination, and so these leaps forward for the business often disrupt not only the market but the internal workings of the organization as well - they also require a lot of explanation.

The change injected into organizations by innovation ebbs and flows across the whole organization's ecosystem:



Let's explore the change categories visualized in this framework using the Apple iPod as an example:

Changes for customers - Any disruptive innovation requires a company to imagine for the customer something they can then imagine for themselves. Go too far past your customers' ability to imagine how the new product or service solves a real problem in their lives, and your adoption will languish.

• Customers had to try and imagine Apple as more than a computer hardware manufacturer, and begin to see them as a company to trust for reliable consumer electronics. They also had to imagine what it might mean to download music digitally (without any physical media).

Changes for employees - Disruptive innovations often require employees do things in a new way, and that can be uncomfortable, even if it is only your employees imagining what you are going to ask them to help your customers imagine.

• Employees had to acquire lots of new knowledge and skills. Apple support employees had to learn to support a different, less-technical customer. Other employees had to learn how to effectively build partnerships in the music industry.

Changes for suppliers - Innovations that disrupt the status quo may require suppliers to work with you in new ways. Some disruptive innovations may require suppliers to make drastic changes akin to those they had to make to support just-in-time manufacturing.

• Apple had to work with suppliers to source components at the higher volumes and shorter lead times required for success in consumer electronics. This meant finding some new suppliers who could handle the new volumes and market requirements.

Changes in distribution - Often big innovations disrupt whole distribution channels and this can cause challenges for incumbent organizations (think Compaq and big box retailers versus Dell Direct).

• Going into consumer electronics meant that Apple had to build relationships with the big box stores including people like Target, Wal-mart, and Costco. They also had to build a completely new distribution system - iTunes - for distributing digital music.

Changes in marketing - New products and services (especially disruptive ones), can require marketing to find and build relationships with completely different types of customers and/or require marketing to speak to customers in a different way or to reach them through different channels.

• Marketing had to begin moving the brand from computing to lifestyle, including changing the company name from 'Apple Computer' to 'Apple' in 2007.
• Marketing also had to learn how to connect with mass market consumers, and help them imagine how this new hardware/software combination would enhance their life - no small task.

Changes in operations - In addition to changes in the supply chain, the organization may have to adapt to disruptive innovations by hiring different types of employees, re-training existing employees, accounting for revenue in a different way, or going about production in a new way.

• The Apple iPod was an experience sell, which highlighted the fact that Apple didn't really have a place where they could help customers experience their products. This led to the opening of Apple retail stores. Apple's finance and operations had to adapt to the change from low volume, high price items to high volume, low price items. Apple also had to build out a resource-intensive online operation that didn't exist before (lots of IT investment).

Note that the chart has arrows going in both directions, but not simultaneously. There is a push-pull relationship. At the beginning of the innovation process the satellites influence what the innovation will look like (new production capabilities, new suppliers, ideas from partners/suppliers, component innovations, new marketing methods, etc.). But as the innovation goes into final commercialization, the direction of the change becomes outwardly focused.

You can see that as an organization is imagining how to take their creative idea and transform it into a valuable innovation in the marketplace, they also should be imagining all of the changes that are going to be required and how they will implement them. This is no small feat, but with proper planning, organizational learning, and adaptation over time, any organization can improve its ability to cope with and even anticipate the change necessary to implement its next disruptive innovation.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Will the Flip be Flipped by the iPod?

by Braden Kelley

Apple's September 9, 2009 media event came and went with what most might call a whimper. There was no highly anticipated Apple iTablet, and the event served to mostly refresh the iPod line.

Lost in the disappointment over the lack of an Apple tablet computer introduction was a small, but potentially huge change to the iPod Nano.

A lot of other authors have written about how great the Flip video camera is, and how it disrupted the video camera market by introducing a smaller, simpler video camera that was 'good enough' at recording video, but made it much easier to get video onto the PC and onto the Internet. Today at Office Depot I saw an 8gb Flip for $199.

Now, the 8gb iPod Nano is $149.

So the iPod Nano is cheaper and a lot smaller. The iPod Nano also has an FM radio, pedometer, voice memo capability, built in special effects, and this thing called iTunes you might have heard of. Want 16gb of storage instead? A 16gb iPod Nano is only $179 (still less than an 8gb Flip). And if you're a Mac user you've also got iMovie and iDVD to edit and burn the videos when get to the Mac. Oh, and you can post them to facebook and YouTube too.

The video quality of the sample videos look 'good enough' and with its cheaper price, smaller size, and wider solution set, I would expect iPod Nano sales to rise and Flip sales to fall.

Sorry Cisco. It looks like you bought into the cheap, simple video camera space a little too late. But then Cisco wins even if the iPod Nano beats out the Flip because they'll sell more networking gear, so they are happy either way.

What do you think?

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

The Beatles and Innovation

"As usual, for these co-written things, John often had just the first verse, which was always enough: it was the direction, it was the signpost and it was the inspiration for the whole song. I hate the word but it was the template." - Paul McCartney


by Drew Boyd

The Beatles were innovators, and they did it the old-fashioned way: they used templates. They were two-way innovators, using a mix of PROBLEM-TO-SOLUTION and SOLUTION-TO-PROBLEM innovation. The Beatles were corporate innovators who created immense fortunes for their shareholders. They used structured methods, experimentation, and technology the same way Fortune 500 companies create new products and services. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles have sold more albums in the United States than any other artist. In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked them number one in its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, and four of their albums appeared in the top ten of the magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list. The Beatles' innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today. The Beatles were collectively included in Time magazine's list of The Most Important People of the 20th Century. How were they so effective?

The Beatles practiced team innovation. John Lennon and Paul McCartney are the most successful musical collaboration in history. One would sketch an idea or a song fragment and take it to the other to finish or improve; in some cases, two incomplete songs or song ideas that each had worked on individually would be combined into a complete song. Often one of the pair would add a middle eight or bridge section to the other's verse and chorus. Lennon called it "Writing eyeball-to-eyeball" and "Playing into each other's noses". They applied these templates in a disciplined, structured way to create a stream of hit songs.


The Beatles were experimenters. David Thurmaier writes:

"Above all, the Beatles remained curious about all types of music, and they continually reinvented their own music by injecting it with fresh influences from multiple cultures. This experimentation adds a dimension to their work that separates it from their contemporaries' music. In the second volume of his book The Beatles as Musicians, Walter Everett explains that "rock musicians' interest in Indian sounds multiplied rapidly" after George Harrison introduced the Indian sitar to the song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)." Also, the string quartet on 1965's "Yesterday" would make its way into the music of other groups around the same time. This exchange of musical innovations worked both ways; for example, the Beatles were able to take elements from Bob Dylan's music and meld them into their own. Their relentless experimentation and questing for the "new" is one strong element that makes the Beatles' music attractive and rewarding for study and enjoyment."


The Beatles loved technology. They innovated songs and the way they produced songs. They used a wide range of techniques in the studio to differentiate their sound including guitar feedback, classical musicians on popular albums, artificial double tracking, close miking of acoustic instruments, sampling, direct injection, synchronizing tape machines, and backwards tapes. The recording process was summed up by Paul McCartney: "We would say, 'Try it. Just try it for us. If it sounds crappy, OK, we'll lose it. But it might just sound good.' We were always pushing ahead: louder, further, longer, more, different. That love of technology lives on today with the release of The Beatles RockbandTM.

Oddly, McCartney seemed uncomfortable using templates to write songs. Perhaps using a template seemed like cheating, making him feel less creative. This is a fallacy about creativity and creative people. My sense is that creative people in any field use a template of some sort. How could creative people like Robert Frost, Shakespeare, da Vinci, and Disney continue to pour out masterful work over and over? Like the Beatles, they used templates. It gave them the direction, the signpost, and the inspiration to apply their creative mind in a structured, systematic way.

Many have studied and commented on the contributions of The Beatles and the lessons learned. And in the end, it was their prolific use of structured innovation templates that made their contributions possible.

---

Drew Boyd is Director of Marketing Mastery for Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon Endo-Surgery division). He is also Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Cincinnati and Executive Director of the MS-Marketing program. Follow him at www.innovationinpractice.com and at http://twitter.com/drewboyd

Social Media and Music - Ideal Partners?

Quiet Company - "It's Better To Spend Money Like There's No Tomorrow Than Spend Tonight Like There's No Money"

I recently became aware of TheSixtyOne, an online music community where "artists upload their work for review, but, rather than allow a stuffy suit in a boardroom to decide what's good, thousands of listeners do." Since I canceled my Last.fm account after they handed user data to the RIAA, I've found TheSixtyOne to be the best way to learn about new bands that you otherwise wouldn't hear about.

One band I've gotten into from TheSixtyOne is Quiet Company from Austin, TX. Their music is a kind of wonderful, melodic piano-pop with lyrics that are optimistic without feeling cheesy. With songs like "It's Better To Spend Money Like There's No Tomorrow Than Spend Tonight Like There's No Money" (above), you know they're not taking themselves too seriously.

After playing the track list multiple times, I just HAD to share them with my Twitter stream. The best way to share music on Twitter is Blip.fm. I searched, found the song, and sent this:

That was the last I thought of it, until this morning. When I opened TweetDeck, I found this reply from @quietcompanytx:

They followed up with another tweet saying I could share that link with anyone I think would like their music, so here you go.

I downloaded the sampler, happy to get free music, and played the three songs about four times over.

Then something funny happened.

I went to the Quiet Company site, and bought & downloaded their newest album, "Everyone You Love Will Be Happy Soon", directly from the band.

What's so funny about that? I almost never buy new music. With the plethora of online music sites - from Last.fm to Pandora, to Blip.fm to TheSixtyOne and more - I can stream just about anything I want. For free.

But because Quiet Company used the tools of the internet - first, to showcase their music; then, to find and reach out to those talking about it - they were able to gain a new fan, turn that fan into an evangelist, and see a return on the time and effort they've spent.

This isn't something that only applies to music. Whether you're a band, a business, or a nonprofit, how can you excite people with your offerings? How can you benefit from listening to online conversations and engaging with those that are talking about your product or service?

---

Gradon Tripp is the founder of Social Media for Social Change, an organization that uses the tools of online media to raise awareness for nonprofits. He writes about ways organizations -- both non-profit and for-profit -- can benefit from using social media at GradonTripp.com.

Making Money by Giving IP Away

If you haven't seen this video highlighting the work that Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails and team have done in the wake of decreasing music sales and increasing piracy, you certainly should:



Nine Inch Nails makes their body of work available on their web site for free and then offers people several different ways of purchasing a part of the music and a part of the experience (including limited edition items).

It all boils down to two key concepts:

1. Connect with fans (CTF)


2. Give people a reason to buy (RTB)

So, what are you doing to connect to the fans of your products and services?

Are you giving your customers enough of a reason to buy?

@innovate