Vevo relaunches with closer Facebook ties
Vevo, the music video company, has relaunched the popular site with a more personalized, social, long-play viewing experience getting closer and further away from that MTV experience at the same time. One of the big changes is that you can now only get the full benefits of Vevo with a Facebook login in, which allows you to create a personalized Facebook playlist and share the videos you’ve watched with your friends on Facebook.
Vevo was the second most watched online video service in the U.S. in January with more than 51.5 million unique visitors watching an average of 62 minutes of video that month according to comScore. It is also YouTube’s number 1 partner.
A reminder that Vevo is owned by Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group and the Abu Dhabi Media Company, It also features music videos from EMI and many independent labels but not Warner Music Group, the third largest label owner.
Vevo’s changes are going down similar routes as many other ambitious online services which believe they need to have a significant social presence to grow and keep users involved sharing detailed traffic data voluntarily and adding value for advertisers and other partners.
In some senses you could argue there are ‘no surprises’ from the MTV of the early 21st Century.
Here’s Vevo executive Michael Cerda talking through the changes on Vevo’s blog:
Today In Music: Sony Music boss invests in start-up, fuels exit speculation
Sony Music Entertainment Rolf Schmidt-Holtz’s personal investment in Hamburg-based entertainment technology company TeVeo has sparked off speculation that his departure is imminent — which it almost certainly is, but not necessarily because of his investment.
As is well known by now, Schmidt-Holtz is very likely to leave Sony Music on March 31st when his contract expires after five years on the hotseat. He will be a partner in TeVeo following an investment, which was cleared by Sony, and is believed to be around 10 percent. We’ve been told by a source that the investment and his likely departure in March are not linked.
So if he does leave what will that mean for Sony Music, still struggling to present a completely united front to the world since the 2004 merger between Sony Music and BMG Entertainment?
The name on everyone’s lips is Doug Morris (pictured, left) , the veteran chairman of Universal Music Group who has held early talks with Sony Corp chief executive Sir Howard Stringer. Other names we’ve heard include Rob Stringer, Sir Howard’s younger brother — which would be an awkward appointment to make for obvious reasons. Other names in the mix include Sony/ATV Music Publishing chief Marty Bandier and Sony USA CFO Rob Wiesenthal. See all the details here in our story from December.
(Photo: Reuters)
Today In Music: Spotify U.S. not imminent, “not even in Q1″
We hate to hit replay on this one but following New York Post’s story today that European streaming music service Spotify is close to a deal with Sony Music and thereby close to launch we decided to call a few people to confirm.
It appears there’s still some distance between Spotify and the big major labels my sources tell me.
“It’s not happening anytime soon, they may be close to getting deals done, but the labels are still not confident about their business model,” one person said.
Spotify’s model is simply to offer free streaming of music to millions of fans with the view to converting a decent proportion of them to paying customers for the customizable features. You’ve read this elsewhere of course and here that the labels expect Swedish founder Daniel Ek (pictured) and his team to provide a boatload of cash as a way to reduce their risk on doing a deal.
But our sources argue it’s not as simple as a “show me the money” scenario. The conversations have fixated on whether Spotify will ever be able to get its conversion rate above 10 percent since they claim even in its best European markets its around 6 to 7 percent on average.
Then there’s the fact that there are already a fair few streaming subscription services in the U.S. including MOG, Rhapsody, Pandora, Napster and Rdio among others which Spotify would be competing with — unlike back home in Europe where it is by far the market leader.
When you take all that into account the same person says: “It’s unlikely to be this quarter.”
Today In Music: Labels still looking forward to Google Music, Spotify less so
So 2010 was the year that wasn’t as far as a major revolutionary digital music launches were concerned. Label executives have been hoping fervently for some real competition to take on Apple’s iTunes. Not that they don’t want iTunes to do very well but having one company control 70 percent of recorded music sales in your biggest markets like the US and UK is perhaps not best for industry growth.
This has meant that whenever it looks like there could be real competition — remember the hopes for Microsoft’s Zune? There’s always been an overreaction from the labels in the hype department. Remember how Amazon would be a true digital rival? Today it’s market share hovers around the 15 percent mark.
So when Google started talking to labels about a music servicethe labels got very excited. So far we know Google has proposed a download store and a digital music locker which will allow you to access music you own wherever you are. They had hoped to have it up and running by Christmas but dealing with labels takes time. In the meantime Google has been getting its house in order for become more a content middle-man media company by promising to work harder on issues like copyright.This is likely because it would like to have more mainstream content for its Android wireless phones and tablets if it is to be a more complete competitor to Apple’s iTunes/iPhone/iPad/iOS ecosystem. We’re hearing the labels are still very confident that Google will get something up and running sooner rather than later despite the delays. Google is also still looking for people to run its music service, though negotiations have been led by Android founder and Google VP of engineering Andy Rubin (pictured, above).
The prognosis for a Spotify US launch is far less positive despite plenty of promise from the European darling of digital music, the labels and Spotify are still far apart on reaching a deal. At issue is the usual old thing: money. Basically, Spotify wants to launch with its free to air service with adverts and hope to make money for itself and the labels by converting users to paying for its slick intuitive service. We’re hearing that the labels, who have done similar streaming deals with a whole range of players like Rhapsody, Napster, MoG and Slacker are not keen to bear the brunt of the risk. In other words offer to pay us more upfront and we can talk.
The labels other concern of course is that if they cut Spotify too favorable a deal they run the risk the likes of Apple and Amazon could turn around and demand similar terms since arguably a free to air service undermines the value of downloads.
Privately some executives are critical of Spotify CEO Daniel Ek’s (pictured, at right) cocksure public promises it would launch in the US in 2010 even while negotiations were still going on — and not really getting anywhere significant.
Whichever side of the debate you sit one things clear it might take even longer than thought for Spotify to get its show on the road here in the US.
eMusic gets Universal Music catalog, overhauls song pricing
Be careful what you wish for because you might just get another major label’s catalog.
eMusic, the independent music lovers’ independent digital music site, is well, no longer that independent. As of November, it will now have music from the world’s number one music company Universal Music, adding more than 250,000 tracks to eMusic’s catalog bringing it to 10 million.
But with the big dog joining the pound eMusic has had to adjust its monthly subscription model. It will no longer offer a fixed number of song credits and will instead switch to good-old fashioned dollar and cents pricing for individual songs. For example right now a starter package of $11.99 will get you 24 song credits a month but going forward $11.99 a month will get you as many songs as $11.99 will buy. eMusic argues that their price points are on average 20 percent to 50 percent cheaper than iTunes or Amazon MP3 store which means many of their songs are around the 50 cent-mark.
This is an excerpt from the notice eMusic US subscribers got when they logged in today:
“Under the new currency pricing system, eMusic members will enjoy savings of 20%-50% compared to iTunes a la carte prices. The majority of albums on eMusic will be priced from $5.19 – $8.99. Single track pricing for members will vary as follows:
○ $0.49 for most tracks currently in our catalog
○ $0.69 – $0.79 for more popular content
I’ve had an eMusic account since 2006 and have endured several changes of plan, in other words substantial price increases. My original plan gave me tracks at just over 22¢ a piece; the price jumped to nearly 40¢ each when they signed up Sony — this after email promising that “Your old plan will be guaranteed as long as you keep your account active and in good standing.” Now, the price per track increases to a minimum of 49¢ — and, more to the point, I will be able to download less tracks per month even with my rather pathetic monthly loyalty bonus. What I liked about eMusic was the ability to download a lot of tracks with the general idea that, because of the low price, I didn’t have to love ‘em all. That’s obviously no longer the operating principle.
I can only see this move by eMusic as a sign of desperation. Clearly, as admitted, the old business model is not working and it would appear that they’re not getting new subscribers with what they have on offer. Otherwise, why would it be necessary to risk alienating those of us who really should be grandfathered in with our original plans? There’s simply too many of us to support the expansionist plans without all-round price increases (for something we don’t really want, old mainstream music!)— and there are not enough new customers.
But, I’d argue, eMusic has analyzed the situation in a drastically wrong-headed radical way. Have they not heard of MOG and Rdio? We can stream any amount of music from Universal and every other major label plus many, many independents for a mere $5 a month. Why should we wish to pay considerably more just to own an mp3 copy? So many songs you only want to hear three or four times, if even that, and then that’s it, move on to something new. If, after streaming we still want to buy our own personal copy, we can get many mp3 albums from either Amazon or iTunes for only a dollar or two more than from eMusic. Why should we wish to be tethered to a subscription plan? Loyalty? I think not since eMusic has shown itself as fundamentally disloyal, not honoring promises of plans continuing and essentially deserting the original independent ethos.
Besides that one-two punch of MOG/Rdio and Amazon/iTunes, there are many other sources for digital music from podcasts to piracy to radio programming to SoundCloud plus iTunes is reportedly getting set with a streaming service and there’s one other 800-pound gorilla, Google, that you know isn’t going to sit quietly in the corner forever. A price increase from eMusic is moving counter to all the trends.
Ultimately, I think this move by eMusic is likely to prove to be the nail in its coffin because there is now no clear reason to pay a subscription every month whether one is looking for music or not, whether there’s anything you like that month, whether you’ve just lost your job and need to cut expenses — there are so many arguments against a higher priced subscription right now that you have to wonder just how desperate eMusic is. It is unlikely that I will continue my subscription and, until now, I’ve been pretty much the ideal customer, a ravenous music fanatic. I’m still a ravenous music fanatic, but eMusic is almost certainly no longer going to be where I look to satisfy my cravings.
Universal Music pulls videos off MTV website
Universal Music Group has pulled its music videos off of MTV’s websites in a dispute over syndication rights for Universal’s co-owned music site Vevo.
With Universal Music’s previous online music video contract with MTV Networks ending on Aug 1, the music company had planned to use Vevo as the distribution platform for its music videos. But the problem for MTV is that would mean adverts around the videos would be sold by Vevo, not MTV, something the music television business found difficult to agree to.
Vevo was launched in December by co-owners Universal Music and Sony Music Entertainment as a dedicated online venue for premium quality music videos – an MTV for the digital age if you like. It features music from EMI as well but Warner Music Group is yet to ink a deal.
Here’s what MTV thinks of Universal’s decision:
For almost 30 years, MTV has enjoyed long and colorful partnerships with all the music labels, including UMG and their talented roster of artists on MTV, VH1 and CMT. As the industry evolves, we continue to seek out new and innovative ways to connect artists with their fans that are beneficial to everyone. However, during our recent discussions with VEVO, we were unable to reach a fair and equitable agreement for rights to stream UMG artists’ video content. As a result, UMG has elected to pull their music videos from our web sites. We are disappointed by this move and sincerely hope that UMG will work with us toward a fair resolution and allow their artists to once again connect with the millions of music fans who visit MTV.com, VH1.com and CMT.com every day.
Here’s what Universal Music says:
“MTVN has been unwilling to negotiate a fair syndication deal with Vevo to carry our artists’ videos and consequently our videos will not be shown on their online properties. We believe that using Vevo as our online music video syndication platform is the best way to maximize revenue for our artists, our songwriters and ourselves, while bringing our videos to the widest possible audience. In less than 8 months since its launch, Vevo has already become the web’s #1 rated video network with over 49 million unique visitors monthly, dramatically eclipsing those on MTV’s online properties, while attracting scores of major advertisers and tens of millions in advertising dollars. As a result, our artists are enjoying tremendous exposure on Vevo on YouTube and Vevo.com, and will enjoy even more as Vevo continues to complete syndication deals supplementing the existing arrangements with leading destinations as AOL and CBS Interactive.”
If you seriously think about it, who actually uses MTV’s websites for watching music videos. People actually want the MTVN channels on television to play the music, not its websites. So users found other places to watch videos that being the popular delivery method started by YouTube and has stayed with YouTube. I think UMG and Vevo are on the right track staying with YouTube over MTV.com
Warner’s music comes to Hulu, still not on Vevo
Warner Music has just announced that it has signed up to offer music videos, live shows and interviews of its artists on the popular online video site Hulu.
This is interesting as Warner Music is the only one of the so-called big four major music companies that hasn’t signed up to put its music on Vevo, the premium music video site jointly owned by Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Abu Dhabi Media Company. Vevo is built on the technology platform of YouTube. Warner and YouTube have recently fallen out then settled over licensing terms.
Ultimately, this is about business for Warner. As the only publicly traded music company, Warner Music Group seems keen to occasionally go a different route from its other major label rivals as its executives will argue they have shareholders to answer to.
But are people going to go to Hulu for music videos? That remains to be seen. Warner exec Michael Nash said in the press release that Hulu offers its artists a “customized and flexible approach to marketing and monetizing their music”.
Warner artists like Muse, Jason Mraz and Paramore will be among those to feature in the deal. The news comes after EMI signed up with Hulu in Nov. EMI also signed up put its artists videos on Vevo, though it is not an equity partner.
(Photo: Reuters)
Vevo doesn’t work in my country
this does http://www.tv243.com
also grabs music videos to shuffle from youtube
love it because i cand find similar artists like last.fm
Global music sales keep falling, pretty much everywhere
The global recorded music sales tanked in 2008, according to figures from the music trade body IFPI, which finally confirmed what we all expected. The worldwide decline was led by a sharp 31 percent drop-off in physical format sales (mainly CDs) in the US. Even though US digital sales grew 16.5 percent it couldn’t make up the shortfall, and overall US sales were down 19 percent.
The trends were similar in the Europe where sales fell by 6.3 percent.
It’s not all gloom and doom though. Sales were up 1 percent in Asia, because it was the one region where the growth in digital sales managed to make up for the fall in CD sales. That will likely be due to the fact that CD sales in some Asian countries has never been properly developed due to piracy. Many labels are further along in using digital-only formats in Asia.
Phil Hardy, analyst at The View, said while physical recorded music sales are in terminal decline, a new business is emerging for recorded music companies in which the digital and ancillary exploitation of their rights are growing. Many in the music business are hoping that licensing music rights to social media sites like Imeem and Pandora or mobile music services beyond just ringtones will be a major growth area in years ahead.
Hardy: It is unlikely that the value of these rights will ever reach that of recorded music sales at its height, but for a slimmed down record industry the higher margins that the digital, performing rights and the 360 degree artist deal sectors represent could bring a return to profitability.
With file sharing virtually shut down for the last 2 years, what we see in music is what consumers have been saying all along. Piracy is not killing the music industry, its\’ own greed and contempt for the audience is. A good, genuine product at a reasonable price tailored for a broad audience has always been the backbone of any marketing plan. People are tird of lip-syncing, scandolous,foul-mouthed, talentless pop stars and tone deaf, ego-centric, musically challenged hip hop performers being force fed them. Too much record company marketing resource is being wasted on the packaging and distribution of these faux acts and not enough on genuine talent. Case in point: country music artists are consistently among the top sellers on the billboard charts. They don\’t lip sync, most actually play an instrument, it sounds like music, and they\’re not considered main stream. The industry is too busy telling us what we want to hear and not busy enough listening to their audience, or to their own product for that matter.
iTunes cuts/raises prices: Teens poised to shrug
With little (or no) fanfare, Apple’s iTunes opened its doors to a new pricing scheme, and song-based packages that the recording industry hopes will jazz up music sales. Good luck.
Apple unveiled a three-tier price scheme – 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29. Since opening in 2003 all songs in the iTunes store have been priced at 99 cents.
So what sells at what price? A little scouring this morning yielded this comparison:
Current hit “Heartless” by Kanye West: now $1.29. Classic hit “Magic Man” by Heart: now $0.69. Marginal hit “Don’t Phunk with my Heart” by Black Eyed Peas still $0.99.
Hate the 30 percent pop in chart-topping prices? Perhaps you’ll find comfort in the fact that for every one song raised to $1.29, iTunes will be reducing 10 songs to 69 cents according to a label source. (But finding the bargains ain’t easy: every version of a sure you’d think MUST be ripe for a discount, lets say, ”Macarthur’s Park” — even versions by Della Reese and Andy Williams — are still $0.99. Go figure.)
Major label owners like Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner Music and EMI say they can make money with more flexible prices and possibly help make music retail a profitable enterprise again.
The new iTunes program also introduces packages, such as Epic Records $17 iTunes “pass” for pop band the Fray, that delivers songs, video footage and photos — spaced out over several weeks. The moves come about a day after Yahoo tweaked its music service.
Let’s dance: Universal, YouTube talk music site
Get ready for Vevo, or whatever YouTube and Universal decide to call their premium online music site.
It’s no sure thing a deal will get done, of course. One source told Reuters that negotiations have “literally” just started and key details, like financial terms, are still undecided.
Still, at first glance, this seems like it could be one of those win-win deals and both sides would probably be smart to work out an arrangement.
For Google, it would mark one way in which they could pull some revenue from YouTube, which it has been seeking to do given its $1.65 billion investment in the site. It would also help smooth over sometime rocky relations with the media industry, while avoiding future disputes like the one it now has with Warner Music (Late last year, after negotiations broke down, Warner demanded that YouTube pull down all music videos on the site featuring its artists).
And for Universal? It lets the music label showcase (in a protected environment) videos from artists like U2 and the Killers — and that’s no small thing when you’re scrounging for all the album sales you can get. What’s more, a deal could finally create a way for music labels to start making more money from videos (presumably, there would be a revenue-sharing deal from advertising that YouTube would sell).
We need to hear more. But right now, it sounds pretty good.
If I was youtube i’d tell em to go flip sand. Perhaps youtube should consider their own Record Company.
