JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Mentor Questions Forum Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow

Okay Ed, I'll go through your statement point by point since it isn't sinking it still.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: Mike, it's not about the filters. It never has been.

Brian: Really? So now you're the expert on what it's REALLY about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: JPF has had its annual awards for how many years now? Has Brian put together a list of links to the winning songs and artists' pages? Well, there's your filter right there.

Has Brian ever published a list of his favorites? He listens to all the stuff JPFers send in for the awards. He's in the best position to be exposed to all the stuff and folks that you and I aren't. That would be a truly JPF filter!
If he doesn't want to because of the administrative position he holds, well that's too bad for the listening public in- AND outside JPF.

If he leaves it to the awards process, well then he's simply abdicating the role he'd be perfectly happy to see Michael Laskow get paid to fill, in order to avoid hurting some folks' feelings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian: As I said.. this already exists. Apparently you are unaware of it. It's posted on our site AND it runs 24/7/365 on our Radio Free Virgin Channel. We're already doing the work of a filter, but we haven't had the appropriate technology or infrastructure to take full advantage of it. On Demand and a Sample List for people looking for cool new music will make a huge difference. We''ve done the work on our end. And again, you always drag TAXI into the discussion. It has nothing to do with our Awards screening, Radio Free Virgin playlist or anything else. You can't mix unrelated discussions. They are not related. As for being happy to see Laskow put out a model, of course we would. Because they service non major label artists and writers, just like our members. And in case you haven't noticed, I have dedicated my entire life for the last 6 years to nothing but promoting and supporting artists and writers in our group. Anything that will give them another great opportunity is a good thing in my book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed: I mean, does anybody here REALLY believe that NARAS voters actually get the Grammies into the hands of those who made the BEST MUSIC for the previous voting period?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian: Who ever said otherwise? We've told people upfront that any awards process is simply a collection of opinions. If done honestly and with diversity among the voting members who have actually HEARD the music that was nominated before voting, that's about as fair a system as you can have to promote great music. That's what we do. The Grammy's simply have people vote on the honor system as to whether they have heard the music or not. But they are open about the process. It's no big secret. It's a popularity contest. Ours is too.. only the popularity is of the music and not the personality/star since few of our nominees are familiar to any of the judges.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed: 'Filters' will simply be paid tastemakers, getting their checks from the subscription service to listen and pick. Won't be long until they'll expect payment from artists for inclusion on the hotlist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian: There's no doubt that people will try to manipulate ANY system that exist to their favor. But currently labels get away with manipulation because they control store shelf space, they control everything fans get exposed to on radio, they control who can tour and play for mass exposure on heavily promoted tours etc. And guess what? They are losing their collective asses spending all the money on legal (and questionable) payola to do it. Once they no longer control what is played on the "radio" and once they no longer can limit what music "stores" can offer for sale, people will slowly discover there is other music out there. Will some labels still thrive? Sure.. because SOME ACTUALLY DO A GREAT JOB PICKING GREAT ARTISTS. Others, however, will fail miserably, because payola, which is barely working now, will fail totally when people figure out that Mike Dunbar's "Honestly Chosen Hit's of the Week" consistently kicks the ass of the Major Label "Subsidized Lame Ass Offerings Of The Week." Now, the other area they can artificially control this process is through the subscription service itself. I am sure there will be subsidized "promotional" offering, just as there are now. The question would be whether any of the services offer access to filters based on quality. The only way things don't improve is if none of the services allow any filters other than the same old major label marketing people. But from what I have seen first hand with the folks at Virgin, and from what I know about some of the folks at the other services, I don't see that happening. I feel optimistic that if the money is the same for subscription services whether it's Britney or Bob Young being played, and Bob Young music is making their listeners happier and more likely to continue the service, they'll go with Bob Young.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed: Anybody, right now, can put together a list of links to songs, and send it out to LOTS of folks. You, Mike Dunbar, can become a JPF filter tonight. And people liking your taste can listen to your recommendations, and perhaps even buy the songs you select.
And if they DID buy a track, you'd be doing a just plain favor to your favorite artist! Right now!

Ed: A bigger favor than if you told them to be happy to MAYBE get a penny after they'd spent who knows how long writing and composing, collaborating and cajoling, recording and re-tracking, mixing and mastering, THEN bought a membership at hundreds of dollars a year, paid a submission fee, paid a forwarding/referring fee to get the song from the A&R to the 'filter', and paid a listing/inclusion fee to said filter, to get the song listed ONCE, and MAYBE listened to ONCE by how many hundreds of people who happened to listen long enough the day you were 'hot-picked'! While EVERYBODY ELSE in the food-chain cashes good checks, made of the money you and every other hopeful and subscriber dutifully send in, every week!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian: This is where you go way off the mark Ed. Let's put together some examples to address your statements.

1. Yes, Mike could become a filter. You're correct. He could also suggest to people he personally knows (how big is your mailing list Mike? lets say 700 people just for an example) to check out and buy the track. Out of the 700 people he knows who get his 50 songs he suggested, let's say 1% of them buy one of the tracks he suggested. That's 7 dollars worth of downloads with a 1% return. And only 7 of those writers/artists get to split up the profit (which is less than 99 cents after the service takes their chunk). The others get zero.

Now, lets say Mike has become a filter for an on demand service. (Radio Free Virgin, by the way, has over 7 million registered players out there for their streaming ONLY radio player.) So lets say this on demand service has only 10% of that number active... 700,000 people. Mike offers up his suggested list of 50 songs to them. 1% of them like the tracks he chose enough to put it in their rotation. The other 99% check it out.. but don't really care for any of his selected songs. Now, the first payment for a penny per play, would equal $7K dollars to each of the artists involved, including those who DIDN'T have their song chosen for a personal playlist. Then, for those who DID get chosen by 1% to listen to again, they'd get an additional penny each time any one of those folks played their song again. How often would someone chose to listen to their favorite songs? Who knows. If they all only listened 1 more time, that would 70 bucks additional earnings. 10 times in a month would be 700 bucks. And so on. Those pennies sure do add up to a hell of a lot more than a 99 cent download ever will.

2. You state "then buy a membership for hundreds of dollars." The likely amount of a year's subscription to one of these on demand services will be around $96 to $120 dollars per year. Total. Who's charging hundreds of dollars? We don't even charge people to enter the music awards/filtering process. What we would likely do it take a percentage of the money paid. If our 50 artists each made $7,000 dollars a piece because we chose them, I am thinking we'd be entitled to something from that. Even if we DID charge a couple hundred dollars from the profits, I am guessing folks would like our model of making $6000 bucks or more using Mike's FILTER much better than your model of making (at best) a couple dollars using Mike's FILTER. Also, where did anyone suggest a submission fee, or a forwarding fee or a listing/inclusion fee? Please show me where this was suggested by us or anyone else other than you? It's all in your imagination Ed. That's why I said the things you have been saying have been ridiculous. They ARE. You're choosing to see the absolute worst case scenario you can imagine (or make up) in the ideas of new models, while clinging to the old models (which have far more REAL flaws) which you seem to ignore. I haven't seen anywhere where I suggested I'd be taking money up front from anyone. I think a percentage deal is much better because if you're doing your job as a filter, the money is automatic (i.e., what you pick WILL earn REAL money.. so you don't need to collect on the front end.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I want to make clear that the "Penny" model is NOT connected to Digital Virgin. It's 2 separate things. I simply illustrated 1 example of how it would work. Also, JPF as a filter has nothing to do with TAXI as a filter or anyone else for that matter. We're discussing multiple topics and issues throughout this post. Laskow offered up 1 idea of a workable model. Virgin Digital announced an unrelated REAL program they are going to offer and fortunately, it brings many of the things that Laskow discussed from mere theory to reality. The Penny model is good because, though it does start off small (a penny) it actually is significantly LARGER than what someone makes on Radio Airplay and dramatically larger than what indie artists will EVER make in record sales. And the beautiful thing is that Virgin Digital is going to offer BOTH! But most folks agree that once the technology, format, pay system and portability issues of On Demand are worked through and agreed on as a standard, the "ownership" model will take a back seat and become far less desirable to most listeners who like the convenience and cost effectiveness of On Demand.

Brian