Pay what you want Radiohead album (the REMIX)

So, I downloaded the album, which I paid $USD6. Frankly, for what is being reported as the death of the record label, it was a little anti-climatic. That is, I paid for a album over the internet that I could have gotten free. The album is good, sort of what we’ve come to expect from RH. Although, it usually takes me a few listening sessions for me to figure out what is going on in their albums. Now what?

For the second act, Trent Reznor announced that NIN has fulfilled their music label contractual obligations are now planning to go it alone, which isn’t all that surprising.

Starting your own record label or self-publishing is not a new thing, as seen with Ani DiFranco’s Righteous Babe started in the 1990, to cite one example. So, the real question still to be answered is, can this scale outside established musicians who admittedly benefited from aspects of the traditional music industry?

Will the home grown bands who grow a fan base through touring, myspace, pitchfork reivews and other grassroots efforts continue on a DIY career path or will they eventual jump to labels, as did Clap Your Hands Say Yeah?

Posted in innovation, marketing, networks | Comments Off on Pay what you want Radiohead album (the REMIX)

Pay what you want Radiohead album

radiohead.jpg
Image source: In Rainbows

Way back in 1999, Public Enemy released “There’s a Poison Goin’ On” only on the internet, with indie label Atomic Pop. After sluggish sales, they eventually sold a CD version as well. I applauded PE for their efforts, although it wasn’t surprising with the outcome. Broadband penetration was much lower and PE has past it’s peak of popularity. Eight years later, the internet is buzzing with Radiohead’s announcement that they are releasing their latest record, In Rainbows, without a label. You can buy the disc set at a pricey £40.00 ($USD 80) or pay whatever you want for the download.

Of course, Radiohead is in a better position to do sometime like this kind of experiment, after having sold millions of records and toured extensively throughout the world. I’m sure the die- hard fans (of which there are many) will purchase the disc set. However, after Thom Yorke’s last album was circulating the internet months before its official release, Radiohead figures to try to recoup some of the lost revenue from p2p file sharing.

I paid £2.50. There is a £0.45 credit card process fee, which they only tell you about at the end of your purchase. I’ll give them a “free pass” on that one.

I got the download code, and will be able to get the album starting on October 10th. I’ll probably wait a few days, because I’m sure that their servers will be clogged at first. I’m not in a rush, as my Radiohead interest peaked a few years ago (I bought Amnesiac on the day it was released.)

I would love to see the numbers, and the distribution of what people’s willingness to pay for the album. It isn’t clear if this is sustainable for other bands, even famous ones. Radiohead is getting a lot of free press for being the first. The 10th band who tries this, won’t have the added benefit of extra publicity. I mean, I’m writing about buying an album on the internet.

I’m sure it will be available on the internet for free the day it is released. I could have gotten activation code for free as well, but I want to reward them for their efforts. I’m also buying the album for $USD5, which is actually how much it is actually worth to me. Although, it may be not be “rational” in the purely short term economic sense, I definitely wanted to reward Radiohead for working in this way.

Posted in innovation, marketing, networks | 1 Comment

Straw poll on Web Attention span

With the fad-ish nature of social networking and online communities, I’m wondering how long people can manage long term, daily usage.

If I had many more of readers than I do, I would probably do this in survey monkey or something. However, I don’t so, I can just do it low – fi.

Here is my question, how long and when were you obsessed with a social networking site or online community?

It’s informal so, please interpret these as you wish and feel free to keep it short.

Linked In – obsessed in July and August 2007 , now only use it occasionally for work

Face Book – still checking multiple times a day for the last two months

MySpace – log in about once a year, usually coinciding with a musician’s record release

Friendster – created a profile around 2004, and never went back

IM – (any, all flavors) still log on daily to AIM, yahoo, msn, google, first starting in 2003, except for 2005 when it was banned in my office.

Second Life – one month in January 2006

Plaxo – never used, it always felt like spam

Usenet – lurked through the 90s, it’s a bit of a blur

IRC – heavy usage in mid-90s until web-based chat killed it.

For your convenience, here are the site you can cut and paste into a comment. But free feel to add any sites I left out.

Linked In –

Face Book –

MySpace –

Friendster –

IM –

Second Life –

Plaxo –

Usenet –

IRC –

Thanks!

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Just wondering, if the new ajax is…

the facebook app. Will I still care about facebook in six months?

Posted in innovation | 4 Comments

Back and away.

OK, so I’m back from Berlin and Munich, but still behind on post.

Right now, I’m in DC attending the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference… Should be interesting.

Posted in telecommunications | Comments Off on Back and away.

Tidbit #2: Cellphone users out number landline users

The threshold everyone in telecom was waiting for, looks like to have arrived, as mobile users overtake landline users. Mediamark Research Inc. announced the results of a study, finding that 84.5% of people surveyed have landlines in their homes, while 86.2% have at least one cellphone. Further, only 12.3% of the participants only had a landline, while the people who solely used mobile phones was 14.0%.

I don’t think that landlines will be going away time soon. Especially for businesses that require stable and high quality voice service. I can see home landlines usage to continue its decline. This move toward mobile-only usage raises interesting questions on how infrastructure in residential landlines will evolve, and the reactions by the telecoms and the FCC.

Posted in telecommunications, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tidbit #2: Cellphone users out number landline users

Univision beats out the networks.

Quick tidbit from media bistro, via biz.yahoo.

Nielsen has started combining Hispanic station rating with the English-speaking ones. Spanish language channel Univision beat out all five networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and CW) in its first week as combined. I’m not sure why they couldn’t have figured out before this week, that so many people were watching Univision. We know know, because they won every night, Monday through Friday. Also, they had nine of out of the top twenty shows. I’m interested in how this will affect the future mix media for marketers and advertising buyers. In any event, it appears that the list of television networks in the US is now six.

Posted in television | 1 Comment

A little cross posting: flow article on Kevin Martin and the FCC

Kevin Martin
Image source: fcc.gov

I got a little behind writing here the last week, because my spare time writing was taken up by finishing my flow column on Kevin Martin, the chairperson of the FCC.

It’s up, so I thought I’d link to it.

What is the blog etiquette on cross-posting?
Good thing? Bad thing?
I’d be curious to hear your opinions.

Posted in spectrum, telecommunications, television, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Repetual Underdogs Innovation Cycle

underdog
Image soure: wikipedia

Americans love the underdog. Remember when seven years ago Google was a small startup, founded two smart guys from Standford? We has the same warm and fuzzy feelings about Microsoft in the 80s, when Bill Gates was everyone’s favorite geeky software boy wonder. It’s funny how, in typical American fashion, everyone roots for the underdog until it becomes the leader. At that point, the 90s era Microsoft and the current Google found themselves scratching their heads, thinking, “Where did our love go?

We wouldn’t be so frustrated that Google is storing and analyzing all of our data, if they didn’t continually to offer or buy and integrate consistently superior products and services. Now that Google is the front runner, everyone has placed a bit target on the back of the company everyone seems to love and hate.

As a follower of innovation, I’m particularly interested in Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of Creative destruction, which embodies the notion that innovation, particularly from entrepreneurs, creates products or services that displace market leaders. Creative destruction is powerful idea and an amazing witness in real time. I’ll admit that it’s too often trotted out to defend monopolies, without mentioning that people often are getting screwed while they wait for some upstart to knock them down.

We know that with personalized search, the acquisition of youtube and Feedburner, gmail, and google docs, Google’s privately owned servers hold more of our digital lives each day. When it is too much? This week, while the Economist is asking “Who’s afraid of Google?Techcruch is touting Cuill (pronounced ‘cool’) as the one to watch.

This startup was created by Anna Patterson and Russell Power, two ex-Google search experts and Tom Costello, who founded of the search engine Xift. Cuill is claiming that their search algorithms and methodology require only 10% of Google’s index costs. Of course, this could all be vaporware, but they have Google’s attention. TechCrunch reports that Google has offered to buy the company, even before the launching of their search engine.

Knowing when a company controls too much power is a very difficult thing to ascertain, until it’s too late. We haven’t been successful at finding the sweet spot where the creative destruction of innovation can occur and flourish without putting the general population at risk. This point occurs at the intersection of innovation, access, and regulation.

Cuill might be the Google search engine killer or it might just be a media darling that dies a quiet death or lingers as an also ran. (There was a time when people thought that Real Networks was posed to challenge Microsoft on the web.) As the speed of innovation increases, what are the criteria and guidelines to know when intervene and level the playing field. Is this something that is even possible to know? If not, what is should be the role of publically funded innovation, as it is getting increasingly rare, as the US government in particular is shifting the responsibility of research and design to the private sector.

Posted in innovation | 3 Comments

Where’s the UGC?

myspace_fashion.jpg
Image source: myspace

MySpace is launching their Fashion site, after being in beta for a year. My first question is where’s the user generated content? All the videos displayed upfront seem to be in-house MySpace clips, with musicians, actors and designers. Although there are lots of comments from users, where are the home-made videos, with people showing off outfits, like the Tron Guy? Am I missing something, or is this another example of a big media company trying to be web 2.0, but really being more like web 1.33?

Posted in social networks | Comments Off on Where’s the UGC?