SXSW: YouTube Provides Artist Analytics And Makes It Easier To Sell To Fans

youtube-for-artists_main

I stopped by the YouTube House at SXSW this morning before my panel. I got there early enough before the live music started, so I effortlessly made my way through the metal barricades and into the space. They had a nifty interactive, video tunnel walkway as soon as you walk in to the left and then more interactive demos on tablets previewing their new analytics platform soon to be released to the public. I got in and out quick with a little video wall tutorial from the YouTube Music for Artists product manager Michael Cumberbatch. It was a nice installation, but I had to dip.

Hours later, after my panel, I made my way back to the YouTube House for a deeper understanding of what they’re doing. Because I’m intrigued.

I’m now sitting in the “Artist Lounge” which is literally 20 feet from the crowd and the stage. As I type, the subs are rumbling the blood thumping through my veins. The multi-talented DJ/performance artist Robert Delong is enthralling the face-painted house. With free beer, cocktails, coconut water, catered pork sandwiches and watermelon bites, it’s not hard to have a good time here. A couple is currently on the couch next to me making out. Score.

IMG_1690

Before the show started, I got another more in depth tutorial from a Youtube Creator Marketing rep, Eric Leiberman. The demo allowed me to choose from 50 artists who are all nominated for the YouTube music awards, such as Ed Sheeran, Snoop Dogg, Tyler Ward and Megan Nicole, and view simple stats from the past 6 months (when YouTube started tracking this data), like top 100 cities and total song plays (across all of YouTube – not just the official artist videos) – along with full date maps displaying views by week. We could also select an artist and pull up a wall-sized map of the world with the artist’s face in a circle proportionate to the popularity of the geographic location.

It was a nice installation and these tools, soon to be open to the public, will help artists getting millions of views route tours to their top cities.

IMG_1683

IMG_1685

yt11

yt22

youtube-for-artists2

Where this program currently falls short, are for the small-midlevel artists with hundreds of thousands of views – not quite millions. Say an artist has received 8,000 views in Mexico City. Let’s say that’s from 700 people. Mexico City has 9 million people. How is that artists supposed to find JUST those 700 people to let them know they are coming to town? A mid-level artist like this would not be able to afford a blanketed ad campaign to attempt to reach those fans. The only platform that currently allows artists to target such a specific demographic is Facebook – and that requires paid ads. But what if those 700 people are not on Facebook (since many teens have fled)? Then what?

This is the first step in developing a healthy, musician middle class. Artists who build a solid YouTube following of, say, thousands, not necessarily millions, could leverage those fans through customized, targeting marketing and relationship building. Pandora released similar analytics late last year (only open to artists), but also does not allow artists to target their fans or notify them when they are coming to town.

However, Cumberbatch did allude to a fantastic feature yet to come which will provide customized, targeted in-video, content cards which will inform those hypothetical 700 fans in Mexico City you’re coming to town. For instance, if a user watched 7 videos by Tyler Ward, up-thumbed a few and commented on one and lives in Mexico City, when Tyler Ward tours through Mexico City, that fan will get an in-video annotation notifying her that Tyler is coming to town with a link to buy tickets. This is the kind of targeted marketing that artists need. Again, Facebook allows this – but only if the artist pays. Artists are already generating ad revenue for YouTube on every monetized video to the tune of 55%, so it’s nice to see YouTube giving back to their artists – more than just the negligible ad revenue.

“Unlike years ago you can be a completely self-made artist” Lindsey Stirling

YouTube Cards

Along with YouTube For Artists, comes Cards. Cards are in-video, graphic annotations that link to concert tickets, merchandise, official artist websites, crowd-funding campaigns, videos, and playlists. Cards will soon completely replace the messy text-only annotations which have been a YouTube staple for years.

Screen Shot 2015-03-19 at 9.16.04 PM

Cards link to approved vendors like BandCamp, BandPage, iTunes, Google Play, BandsInTown, SongKick, CafePress, Band Merch, Etsy, Topspin, and a hoard of others. And their approved crowd-funding sites include Patreon, PledgeMusic, Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, FundAnything, Rockethub, among others. You can also setup links to the artist’s official website (as long as Google Analytics is added to the site’s code).

+Why The Patreon Acquisition of Subbable Is Important

Any artist can now login to their YouTube account and setup these cards. YouTube steps you through how to do this here.

As we move away from recorded music sales, allowing artists to harness their loyal fans acquired in the digital sphere and generate income from them via alternative revenue streams like crowd-funding, merchandising, smarter ticketing, VIP experiences, exclusive content, and yes, streaming, the future of the music industry ain’t looking so bad after all.

This is only the beginning.

Ari Herstand is a Los Angeles based singer/songwriter and the creator of the music biz, advice blog, Ari’s Take. Follow him on Twitter: @aristake

52 Responses

    • and... $375 per Million Plays... wow...

      Artists need to learn how to use YouTube. Stop giving away the thing you are trying to sell. Employ the use of cut down edits, snippets, alternate versions, etc. And most definitely opt out of all Content ID… BLOCK don’t monetize. Seriously. Does $375 per Million Plays sound like a good deal to you?

      It’s Just Math, Free Doesn’t Pay…

      http://thetrichordist.com/2015/03/04/youtubes-content-id-375-00-per-million-views-this-is-what-were-fighting-for/

      Reply
      • Sarah

        No, $375 for a million plays does not sound good – it’s rather ridiculous actually, in my opinion.

        Free is simply a marketing strategy (assuming you’re a professional artist and your goal is to earn an income), and needs to be tailored to your specific goals and what stage your business is at.

        For instance, if you’re brand new and just building a fan base (which, by the way, doesn’t have to be in the millions – setting that as a standard goal is unreasonable), then more liberal use of “free” may be appropriate because it is marketing, enabling potential fans to discover you risk-free.

        But established artists should generally use free far more sparingly – precisely as you suggest, as “teasers” for the rest of the paid content. There are a number of variations on this theme; as suggested above, use short “teasers” that capture interest and direct users to a source where they can pay for the full thing, or follow ye old “single” strategy: out of the X new songs you’ve got, only release 1 or 2 of them to get people over to buy the rest.

        In any case, you always want to convert your audience from “YouTube’s audience” to “YOUR audience.” This means first and foremost getting their contact info (email) so you can communicate directly with them, for free, without relying on another platform – fans are an asset, and probably the most important one you can have in your business, so you need to own that relationship and be able to contact them directly; otherwise you’re investing resources in an asset that someone else owns, which is a silly business move.

        We’re currently giving demos of RepX and inviting professional artists onto our system before we launch. We implement many of these principles; RepX is tremendously different from other platforms because we treat professional artists like the businesses they are.

        If you’re interested in learning more, seeing how it works, or sharing your thoughts about what you need in a platform as a professional artist, we’d love to talk with you. 🙂

        Reply
      • Anonymous

        “Artists need to learn how to use YouTube. Stop giving away the thing you are trying to sell. Employ the use of cut down edits, snippets, alternate versions

        Excellent advice. Unfortunately a little late for those who signed with Music Key — they have to deliver everything to Music Key and YouTube on release day — but still true for the rest of us.

        Short, non-cannibalizing YouTube videos combined with iTunes sales are still the most powerful combo out there.

        “And most definitely opt out of all Content ID… BLOCK don’t monetize.”

        Correct — except you can’t block without ContentID…

        Reply
    • Anonymous

      “Thoughts [regarding cards]?”

      As I understand it, you actually have to click the “i” in order to see the cards (as opposed to ordinary annotations that just pop up).

      It’s beyond me why anybody would want to do that.

      Reply
      • Sarah

        Really? Wow. Those ordinary annotations that pop up are so obnoxious – why on earth would anyone choose to have even bigger stuff pop up over the video they’re trying to watch? If you’re right, that’s a weird implementation of this idea.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          It’s not entirely clear from YouTube’s own video presentation how cards work. Take a look for yourself (I snipped the following parts from the url to cheat the spam filter: [https] [:] [//] — add them again without the brackets):

          support.google.com/youtube/answer/6140493

          IF the teaser shown at 0:33 in the video actually tells you which card it represents, then it’s kind of OK. (‘Kind of’ because I still doubt people will click the “i” later on.)

          If it doesn’t, then it’s worthless compared to common annotations (which, btw, may be obnoxious but make sense if you want to sell songs on iTunes and stuff like that).

          Reply
          • Sarah

            Thanks for the link. I get the impression that the teaser does tell you which card it represents, but I agree that very few people will click just the “i.”

            Between the two, I think I’d favor the overlaid annotations from the artist’s POV (for effectiveness), and the cards from the viewer’s POV (for non-obtrusiveness).

          • Anonymous

            “I think I’d favor the overlaid annotations from the artist’s POV (for effectiveness), and the cards from the viewer’s POV (for non-obtrusiveness)”

            I’m afraid you’re right. It was a completely unnecessary initiative, and it’s going to hurt artists a lot, but it does look nice.

  1. FarePlay

    “This is the first step in developing a healthy, musician middle class. Artists who build a solid YouTube following of, say, thousands, not necessarily millions, could leverage those fans through customized, targeting marketing and relationship building. Pandora released similar analytics late last year (only open to artists), but also does not allow artists to target their fans or notify them when they are coming to town.”

    This is what we always come back to and where things fall apart. For a decade we’ve been told by the innovators, that all of theses benefits you’re talking about will open the door to profitability through diversity and multiple streams of revenue. It doesn’t work for nearly as many performers who made money selling music. Zoe Keating has done a good job of bringing transparency to that myth.

    I think it’s great that people buy into the BS, so everyone isn’t walking around with a pessimistic view of music, but Youtube? Considered by many as the biggest pirate site in the globe, saved by the Safe Harbor loophole like so many others. Demanding artists make everything available on their service, threatening to not use content ID to protect those who don’t sign.

    Does look like they have a really flashy installation.

    Reply
  2. Tcooke

    I like what Ari does. But anyway, back to macro: the overall economy. The middle be dwindled. Music is quite possibly the foreshadower or just more progessed of what the overall economy will continue to do. In other words, no there will not be a middle class coming up in music, but the overall economy will follow behind the music industry. Getting worse and worse. Please don’t buy into employment data rates by the government bc they do not incorporate people unemployed greater than 2 years. Etc. It’s been a big transferance of wealth. Don’t be nieve and think artists will be engaging in a growing middle class. Start thinking how to prosper with the acceptance that things are going to get worse and worse and worse.

    Reply
  3. Remi Swierczek

    YouTube is a music consumption and music discovery place for youngsters with to much time on hand, not much purpose in life yet and most important folks with NO CASH! It’s a converter of music GOLD to sawdust.

    Let’s evolve it to:
    LABEL ONE and wholesale HUB OF MUSIC for Radio and streaming converted to music store.

    $50B YouTube as a hub of $100B music by 2020. Google with other music investments could DOUBLE!

    Reply
  4. Central Scrutinizer

    “Unlike years ago you can be a completely self-made artist” Lindsey Stirling

    Still selling that digital utopia

    Reply
    • Willis

      The digital age has helped artists reach more fans quicker, for less money. That part is true. The other part that still holds true – you have to be a good artist with good material. Without the second, the first doesn’t much matter.

      Reply
      • FarePlay

        Willis, you had me. I thought you were going to say: “The digital age has helped artists reach more fans quicker, for less money. That part is true.” BUT The problem is digital has taken people’s most valued possessions, their work, and tossed it out on their front yard like some desperate garage sale.

        Oh’ well. Feel FREE to use my line next time.

        Reply
        • Willis

          I think you are a little confused. Digital hasn’t diminished the value of music. Digital has made it more accessible. People have diminished the value of music.

          Reply
          • FarePlay

            Willis Friday, March 20, 2015. “People have diminished the value of music.”

            What do you mean?

          • Willis

            By they actions. Just because music is easy to get, distribute, copy, etc. doesn’t mean that there is less value, or that is can/should be taken for free. The majority of the population doesn’t walk into a store and steal, even if it is easy to do so. They pay for things, understand the value and accept the cost. For whatever reason, people that steal (for lack of a better word) music don’t check their ethical standards. Some like to just amass collections and probably listen to only a few songs. Some are just cheap and don’t want to pay (even though the cost of music is incredibly reasonable – consider a $.99 song and the fact that it might be listened to 100 times+).

            It is people, and their unethical actions, that affect the value of music.

          • Sarah

            At the risk of being controversial, I’d argue that it is also the actions of the people selling music that contribute to its devaluation. Presentation and perception are very important in business. What kind of message are you sending to the market if you make a song free on YouTube and paid on iTunes?

            I understand what you’re aiming for (“it’s free on YouTube for discovery purposes, they should go pay on iTunes if they like it”) but that just doesn’t translate well to markets – “it’s always free over here, but you can pay for it over there” is a message that translates to most consumers as simply “it’s always free.”

            Willis
            even though the cost of music is incredibly reasonable – consider a $.99 song and the fact that it might be listened to 100 times+

            Absolutely, if you pay $.99 for a song you listen to 100+ times, you’re getting a heck of a bargain. I’d argue it should cost more, in fact, because it’s probably worth more to you.

            But most songs are NOT listened to 100+ times by most consumers. If you pay a dollar for a song you listen to 4 times, that’s $0.25 per play. In that case, you’re probably overpaying.

            That’s why RepX offers both purchasing and PAYG streaming – you can pay based on how much you actually listen, per song.

            If you only listen to a song very occasionally, you are probably not going to pay $0.99 for it – but why shouldn’t you pay something for it when you do choose to listen to it? (You should.)

          • Versus

            “If you pay a dollar for a song you listen to 4 times, that’s $0.25 per play. In that case, you’re probably overpaying.”

            Why is that “overpaying”?
            While it is impossible to put a price on love, and at least difficult to put a price on art, let’s consider some com parables:

            – A spin in a jukebox used to be exactly $0.25 per play, back in the day. People willingly paid that. Now it’s more like triple that, in bars that still have jukeboxes.
            – A movie which is seen ONE time: $10, $12 or more. People willingly pay that.
            – An espresso or cappuccino or disgusting invention like a “frappucino” – $3,4,5?
            – shot of vodka: $5?

            If someone pays that $0.99, they have the use of that song FOREVER. That’s a great deal. If they choose to only play it a few times, that it is on them. It does not reduce the value of the deal. If get a Ferrari for $50k, I got an amazing deal, even if it only sits in my garage and I never drive it.

          • Sarah

            Ah, I meant in terms of the market, not personally. Intersection of supply and demand, etc. I think you’ll find that for most songs, the “market price” is indeed below that now, regardless of what used to be paid (for one thing, the supply of songs, as well as of other forms of entertainment, has increased). Also the comparison of jukebox playing (to a public audience, even if limited) versus private, single-listener playing is probably faulty.

            But yes, it is almost certain that songs are priced incorrectly as they stand. We know that because those prices have, for all intents and purposes, been arbitrarily fixed and not adequately subjected or responsive to market forces. Songs vary so much that assigning one fixed price to them is almost necessarily incorrect. If they were, you probably wouldn’t find such a price discrepancy between what Spotify plays per stream and what iTunes pays per download – those prices aren’t really rational, if we’re talking about value to the end users.

            Versus
            If someone pays that $0.99, they have the use of that song FOREVER. That’s a great deal. If they choose to only play it a few times, that it is on them. It does not reduce the value of the deal. If get a Ferrari for $50k, I got an amazing deal, even if it only sits in my garage and I never drive it.

            Great point. It is on them if they make a purchase that they never use. That is a big part of why they choose to NOT make purchases, in favor of streaming and downloading illegally – just like why people who don’t ever want to drive a Ferrari don’t buy them: no matter how good the price is hypothetically, it’s a bad deal for them individually. As a result, artists get way less money than you would than if they’d purchased.

            The price isn’t the point, honestly – it’s merely the result of considering many, many points, and it probably varies slightly from song to song as well as over time (e.g., as songs become dated, or go the other way and become classics). I think you should be able to charge whatever you want for your music – it’s yours; if you price too high and no one buys it, then (to paraphrase you) “it’s on you.”

          • Versus

            Yes, I agree….you should be able to sell your music at any price you wish. It’s a luxury item, after all, not a necessity. Listeners can choose to pay the price or do without it.

            The problem is that the market is completely distorted by all the illegal “free” (that is, infringing) access. Supply/demand economics cannot operate fairly in such a black market situation.

      • Sarah

        I agree with your comment. There are also other factors at play, though, I think.

        Yes, the digital age has made it easier to record and distribute. That part is awesome.
        But it’s made it easier for everyone, which means that the truly talented get as much access as the “less than truly talented.” And then YouTube puts them all, good and bad, professional and amateur, on the same platform and treats them all the same. That’s confusing for the market.

        The blurred line between amateur and professional hurts professionals, in my opinion, because it (1) creates incredible noise that they must compete with for attention and (2) devalues their work in the consumer’s perception.

        If two music videos are released on the same platform, delivered to consumers in the same format and environment, for free, you can’t then expect consumers to understand why one of those things should actually cost them money. Perception is critical to marketing. “My work is free here, and you can have it whenever you want, but it actually costs money somewhere else and I’d like if you’d go there and pay for it” is a tough proposition to get the typical person to buy into.

        RepX is exclusively reserved for professional content, for those reasons – we believe it is critical to reestablish the boundary between what is professional (not free by default) and what is amateur (free by default).

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “YouTube puts them all, good and bad, professional and amateur, on the same platform”

          Yup, that’s why it’s so popular: You can find everything you need — and it’s free (for now).

          “RepX is exclusively reserved for professional content”

          Good luck with that…

          Reply
          • Sarah

            Yes, we understand that people like things for free. That doesn’t mean they should get everything for free. This is a lesson most toddlers learn: you can’t have everything you want just because you want it.

          • Anonymous

            “This is a lesson most toddlers learn: you can’t have everything you want just because you want it.”

            Quite. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with 2 billion toddlers and 30k grown ups in the real world…

          • Sarah

            Well, then they’re at a good age to learn new behaviors 🙂
            Seriously, though, it’s just a matter of structuring processes and strong incentives properly.

            And unlike what companies like YouTube and Facebook would have us all believe, you don’t need a billion users to make a good business and get desirable results. It’s a matter of considering user numbers as well as the average value per user.

            So, for instance, you could have 10 users pay $1 each, or 100 users pay $0.10 each, or 1,000 users pay $0.01 each – no matter what, you wind up with $10 in total revenue. Free services need crazy high numbers of users because every user is worth so little.

            Yes, you need an audience that values your work – but whether you need an audience of 10k or 100k or 1 million is totally dependent on the average value of your audience member. You insist on the highest possible audience numbers, even though it means each fan is worth exceedingly little; I say that to maximize revenues, you need to pay attention to both audience numbers and the average value of your fans. If you want fame or popularity over money, your way is right; if you want to make more money, my way is right. If you want both, you probably should be focusing on a blend of the two (free to gain numbers, paid to maximize income). Just a question of what your goal is.

          • Anonymous

            “Well, then they’re at a good age to learn new behaviors”

            Which brings us back to the ‘good luck witht that’ part, doesn’t it…

            “So, for instance, you could have 10 users pay $1 each, or 100 users pay $0.10 each, or 1,000 users pay $0.01 each – no matter what, you wind up with $10 in total revenue.”

            Look, I’ve been on your side for years. But the landscape is changing, and so am I. The toddlers learned that they can have everything for free, and you can’t change that now.

            As for the crazy high numbers you keep mentioning: They exist. They are out there, in the real world. So what’s the problem?

            Besides, you don’t need 2 billion users to make it work: Again, YouTube’s free tier could easily pay right holders properly today. YouTube’s net revenue, after payments to partners, was $1.5 billion in 2013, according to the link below (add [http] [:] [//] [www.] without the brackets). That’s more than it paid to right holders in total since 2005. So it’s just not true when they claim to pay 55% to content providers…

            There’s only one thing wrong with YouTube and that’s Google.

            A less greedy, free, ad-finansed YouTube alternative would be a gold mine for the music industry.

            businessinsider.com/youtubes-2013-revenue-2014-7?IR=T

          • Sarah

            Well, I agree that Google’s got some suspect math going on. But “a less greedy YouTube”?

            You want a company that has the power and size of YouTube, that uses the same business model, but that somehow decides to want less money for itself? And even if you get that company, what’s to stop them from growing big and then implementing policies that are even worse for artists?

            The model is perfect for greedy abuses of power – there’s no transparency in it (as you point out, we don’t even know that they in fact pay out according to the percentages that they themselves set) and the size required to make the model even reasonably sustainable means that, if successful, it’s a near monopoly.

          • Anonymous

            “You want a company that has the power and size of YouTube, that uses the same business model, but that somehow decides to want less money for itself?”

            Yes.

            “And even if you get that company, what’s to stop them from growing big and then implementing policies that are even worse for artists?”

            Good question, and the answer is simple: It needs to be owned and operated by the music industry.

            I’m not talking about the majors. But Indies account for about one third of the entire industry. That’s a lot of money. A lot of power. And they are motivated.

            All it takes is organization…

          • Sarah

            You don’t mean the majors – you mean Indies, who would take their collectively significant resources and power and “organize.” You realize that, if successful, you’d likely just wind up with the Indies being the new majors?

            All you’re talking about is ultimately a transfer of power from one small group of entities to a different small group of entities. That might be a worthy goal, and even produce some benefits, but it’s still retaining the same flawed power structure that is so susceptible to unfair behavior. These are systemic problems, not just “who happens to be at the top today?” problems.

          • Anonymous

            “You realize that, if successful, you’d likely just wind up with the Indies being the new majors? “

            And? I don’t think the majors are evil.

            When I exclude them from the scenario, it’s because they won’t be motivated to launch a new YouTube. On the contrary — they are, for all practical purposes, owned by YouTube (they have to deliver all their content to the service on release day).

            But the indies are motivated.

          • Sarah

            I don’t think they’re evil either – they’re just looking out for their interests, and that’s understandable.

            But okay. So you say the indies collectively account for about 1/3 of the industry?
            Then the majors collectively account for 2/3 of the industry.
            And you also point out that they’re currently on YouTube’s team.

            Let’s imagine this as a sports game.

            On one team, we’ve got 2/3 of the music industry, plus an established digital service (YouTube) with currently all of the content, a billion users, and a tech behemoth (Google) behind them with nearly bottomless coffers. Their infrastructure is already built out, they have data centers, etc. There are just a handful of dominant players in a relatively stable equilibrium.

            On the other team, we’ve got 1/3 of the music industry. They have no existing infrastructure to support a would-be YouTube alternative, nor do they have any strong tech connections/allies. They have money, power, and motivation – but these only matter in relative terms, and they have far less of any of those things than our first team has (except perhaps motivation, but I’d argue that Team 1 is pretty motivated, albeit for different reasons). They also have many players, most relatively small and many of which are working at becoming dominant players (read: suspect to internal squabbles).

            Throw in economics (for instance, the second team even playing means increasing supply of ad slots, which will drive overall ad prices down) and your favorite obstacle: the difficulty of changing user behaviors…

            It’s possible for the second team to win, but the odds are not in their favor at all. Personally, I always love a good underdog story so I’d probably root for them (but not bet on them).

          • Anonymous

            I’m sure the one third of Indies includes the t to the dot swizzle and other major distributed and helped Indies thus making the number extremely skewed…

            the dot swizzle is hardly Indy, she’s like the poster girl face of the industry, she’s a cow, a major cow, say mooooooo….

            😉

          • Anonymous

            “Personally, I always love a good underdog story”

            Most of us do. That’s why everybody loved Google back in the day.

            I really don’t know who’s next, and I don’t know what they’re going to look like. But I do know they’re going to be really, really naughty.

            And they’re not going to have any kind of respect for Google.

            Now, I rarely agree with the author of this article, but I think he’s right that Patreon is the future:

            An artist, Jack Conte, saw the need and did something about it.

            Conte is also aware that YouTube doesn’t pay artists, so who knows? Perhaps he’s going to do something about that, too…

          • Versus

            “The toddlers learned that they can have everything for free, and you can’t change that now.”

            Laws change, cultural norms change, enforcement changes. This can change.

          • Sarah

            I agree. It’s simply a matter of structuring the incentives and system properly.

            (Also, as a matter of principle, saying “they’ve gotten used to theft, so we must simply accept that and give them everything for free” just isn’t for me.)

            As has been pointed out by others, most people do NOT steal as a matter of course. Behavior with online content is a significant deviation from ordinary behavior – likely influenced by the distorted, non-responsive paid market as much as it is by the ease of theft in this context. Both are factors.

            You can’t realistically force people to pay for music, but you can get them to choose to pay, and you can structure processes that validate and reward that “good behavior.”

            Even converting some of the current non-paying consumers into low-paying consumers can cause an increase in total industry revenue. Do that while providing superior opportunities for the super fans and high users to continue paying the same or even more than they do . . . that’d turn things around for the industry in a big way.

        • Wooly

          You used the words “blurred line” and that will cost you. Marvin Gaye’s family attorney will be in touch with you soon.

          Reply
    • Versus

      A completely self-made, completely broke artist.
      But hey, you got EXPOSURE!

      Reply
      • Sarah

        There’s a saying about fame and fortune: you can have one or the other, but you can’t have both.

        In reality, they’re on a continuum where – for most circumstances – you can reasonably attain some mix of fame and fortune, but not extremes of both simultaneously (the Taylor Swifts are awesome, but they’re outliers).

        YouTube is certainly at that “fame” extreme. Fame isn’t guaranteed (it’s actually totally uncertain and improbable) and you’re most likely sacrificing quite a bit on the “fortune” end of things in your effort to obtain it.

        Reply
  5. Bunsen

    Does anyone else wish Ari would’t talk so much about himself and his itinerary, what the food was, who’s around him and just get the point?

    Reply
    • Versus

      Absolutely. This seems to be a disease of journalism in recent years – excessive much personal anecdote. I always skip those parts.

      Reply
  6. Mike B.

    “…soon to be open to the public…”

    How soon are they saying, Ari?

    Reply
  7. Paul Resnikoff
    Paul Resnikoff

    The point about Pandora is dead-on. Giving a little heat map of fans without any way to reach out to them is kind of like telling some guy that there are lots of women in Sacramento who would love to go on a date with him (but offering no way to connect with those women).

    Is he supposed to go to the town square with a sign that says, ‘I’m Single!”?

    Reply
    • Big Swifty

      Yes, the music industry can still lean some from the on-line porn industry

      Reply
    • JTVDigital

      Isn’t that called targeted advertising? Aren’t ads Google’s core business (AdWords)?
      Once you know where the fans are (in terms of cities or countries, whatever) what prevents you to place targeted ads (after fine-tuning by gender, age, musical taste, etc.)? What’s wrong with that?
      Or it can be done via Facebook ads as well using the same core data obtained from these new YT metrics.

      Reply
  8. Anonymous

    music is just fodder for tech…

    the funniest thing i found about youtubes new artist thing, was their front and center celebrity super star they used to market the amazingness of their platform and how it ultimately will build a career, is someone who already lost their labels support for videos…

    youtubes #1 gunner to market the possibility of an artistic superstar career, has already fallen flat on their major label debut and since labels are so quick on the trigger, already she lost funding for videos and has to fund them herself…

    yeah, sounds like a blossoming flourishing career…

    its all a pretty big joke, but obviously still doable…

    but hey, they are just like everyone else, look behind any curtain and see a nasty world within each company and each industry that is quite different the public image they portray…

    anyways, good luck to those chasing that dream down but dont forget to try funneling up instead…

    🙂

    Reply
    • Big Swifty

      “Try funneling up”

      Does that mean learn how to pour funnel cakes at the county fair? Because you know if you’re a musician you’re gonna need a source of income from somewhere.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        Hey swifty, yes money needs to be made somehow, I can help you strap your purple high heels on, that’d be better then making funnel cakes for sure, either way its a bit of a circus…

        🙂

        Reply
        • Big Swifty

          I think I would rather be making funnel cakes at the fair, I’m not a foot/shoe fetish type of person

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            I was talking to you as if you were the dot swizzle herself, so pass along the info either way… I’m a shoe guy myself but not much of a fetish guy, and a bit of a fashionista, so I’m always checking out girls/women with adoration and extreme scrutiny, I have radar gutsy. extends for many miles in all directions, so any woman I find attractive landing on my radar becomes a target, anyways I like her move away from hipster to more Victoria angel model, its a better more mature and refined look for her, so anyways, ill look you in the eyes, then slowly, very slowly, ill scan down to your shoes, and then slowly make my way back up to the eyes, while studying and critiquing every fiber of clothes and every curve of body, of course its also possible ill be caught in lala land thinking about who m les what and just kind of walk right by you like tour a telephone pole, tough to say, but purple shoes and a green dress, well, it leaves little to the imagination other then everything it leaves to the imagination, but anyways, she’s more like my sister so I shouldn’t talk like that or tease her so much, never the less, funnel cake anyone?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *