“This week we released a new album, and it’s our best yet,” says US rock band OK Go.
“We also released a new video — the second for this record — for a song called This Too Shall Pass, and you can watch it here,” it says.
“We hope you’ll like it and comment on it and pass the link along to your friends and do that wonderful thing that that you do when you’re fond of something, share it. We want you to stick it on your web page, post it on your wall, and embed it everywhere you can think of.”
Embed it, eh?
Will do, guys.
But wait! “Embedding disabled by request”
Huh?
“Unfortunately, as of now you can’t embed diddlycrap,” says the band in an Open Letter, going on >>>
And depending on where you are in the world, you might not even be able to watch it.
We’ve been flooded with complaints recently because our YouTube videos can’t be embedded on websites, and in certain countries can’t be seen at all. And we want you to know: we hear you, and we’re sorry. We wish there was something we could do. Believe us, we want you to pass our videos around more than you do, but, crazy as it may seem, it’s now far harder for bands to make videos accessible online than it was four years ago.
See, here’s the deal. The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record label, EMI. The label fronts the money for us to make recordings – for this album they paid for us to spend a few months with one of the world’s best producers in a converted barn in Amish country wringing our souls and playing tympani and twiddling knobs – and they put up most of the cash that it takes to distribute and promote our albums, including the costs of pressing CDs, advertising, and making videos. We make our videos ourselves, and we keep them dirt cheap, but still, it all adds up, and it adds up to a great deal more than we have in our bank account, which is why we have a record label in the first place.
Fifteen years ago, when the terms of contracts like ours were dreamt up, a major label could record two cats fighting in a bag and three months later they’d have a hit. No more. People of the world, there has been a revolution. You no longer give a shit what major labels want you to listen to (good job, world!), and you no longer spend money actually buying the music you listen to (perhaps not so good job, world). So the money that used to flow through the music business has slowed to a trickle, and every label, large or small, is scrambling to catch every last drop. You can’t blame them; they need new shoes, just like everybody else. And musicians need them to survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while.
But where are they gonna find money if no one buys music? One target is radio stations (there’s lots of articles out there. here’s one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20…ouse-senate.ars ). And another is our friend The Internutz. As you’ve no doubt noticed, sites like YouTube, MySpace, and Blahzayblahblah.cn run ads on copyrighted content. Back when Young MC’s second album (the one that didn’t have Bust A Move on it) could go Gold without a second thought, labels would’ve considered these sites primarily promotional partners like they did with MTV, but times have changed. The labels are hurting and they need every penny they can find, so they’ve demanded a piece of the action. They got all huffy a couple years ago and threatened all sorts of legal terror and eventually all four majors struck deals with YouTube which pay them tiny, tiny sums of money every time one of their videos gets played. Seems like a fair enough solution, right? YouTube gets to keep the content, and the labels get some income.
The catch: the software that pays out those tiny sums doesn’t pay if a video is embedded. This means our label doesn’t get their hard-won share of the pie if our video is played on your blog, so (surprise, surprise) they won’t let us be on your blog. And, voilá: four years after we posted our first homemade videos to YouTube and they spread across the globe faster than swine flu, making our bassist’s glasses recognizable to 70-year-olds in Wichita and 5-year-olds in Seoul and eventually turning a tidy little profit for EMI, we’re – unbelievably – stuck in the position of arguing with our own label about the merits of having our videos be easily shared. It’s like the world has gone backwards.
Let’s take a wider view for a second. What we’re really talking about here is the shift in the way we think about music. We’re stuck between two worlds: the world of ten years ago, where music was privately owned in discreet little chunks (CDs), and a new one that seems to be emerging, where music is universally publicly accessible. The thing is, only one of these worlds has a (somewhat) stable system in place for funding music and all of its associated nuts-and-bolts logistics, and, even if it were possible, none of us would willingly return to that world. Aside from the smug assholes who ran labels, who’d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats? All the same, if music is going to be more than a hobby, someone, literally, has to pay the piper. So we’ve got this ridiculous situation where the machinery of the old system is frantically trying to contort and reshape and rewire itself to run without actually selling music. It’s like a car trying to figure out how to run without gas, or a fish trying to learn to breath air.
So what’s there to do? On the macro level, well, who the hell knows? There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them. As for our specific roadblock with the video embedding, the obvious solution is for YouTube to work out its software so it allow labels to monetize their videos, wherever on the Internet or the globe they’re being accessed. That’ll surely happen before too long because there’s plenty of money to be made, but it’s more complicated than it looks at first glance. Advertisers aren’t too keen on paying for ads when they don’t know where the ads will appear (“Dear users of FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com, try Gerber’s new low-lactose formula!”), so there are a lot of hurdles to get over.
In the meantime, the only thing OK Go can do is to upload our videos to sites that allow for embedding, like MySpace and Vimeo. We do that already, but it stings a little. Not only does it cannibalize our own numbers (it tends to do our business more good to get 40 million hits on one site than 1 million hits on 40 sites), but, as you can imagine, we feel a lot of allegiance to the fine people at YouTube. They’ve been good to us, and what they want is what we want: lots of people to see our videos. When push comes to shove, however, we like our fans more, which is why you can take the code at the bottom of this email and embed the “This Too Shall Pass” video all over the Internet.
With or without this embedding problem, we’ll never get 50 zillion views on a YouTube video again. That moment – the dawn of internet video – is gone. The internet isn’t as anarchic as it was then. Now there are Madison Avenue firms that specialize in “viral marketing” and the success of our videos is now taught in business school. But here’s a secret: zillions of hits was never the point. We’re a rock band, and it’s a great gig. Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff. We chase our craziest ideas for a living, and if sharing those ideas takes 40 websites instead of one, it doesn’t make too big a difference to us.
“So, for now, here’s the bottom line,” says the letter, adding, “EMI won’t let us let you embed our YouTube videos.
“It’s a decision that bums us out. We’ve argued with them a lot about it, but we also understand why they’re doing it.
“They’re aware that their rules make it harder for people to watch and share our videos, but, while our duty is to our music and our fans, theirs is to their shareholders, and they believe they’re doing the right thing.”
Here’s the embed code for a Vimeo posting:
<object width=”400″ height=”300″><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always” /><param name=”movie” value=”http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8718627&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1″ /><embed src=”http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8718627&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”400″ height=”300″></embed></object><p><a href=”http://vimeo.com/8718627″>OK Go – This Too Shall Pass</a> from <a href=”http://vimeo.com/user2495615″>OK Go</a> on <a href=”http://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a>.</p>
“Go forth and put it everywhere, please. And buy our album,” says the band. “It’s great.
“Yours Truly, Damian (on behalf of OK Go) “
January 20th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Ain’t that the truth.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Has anyone in a band tried getting venture capitalists to invest in them as opposed to signing a record deal? It seems like as hard as record deals are to come buy, if they are good enough to get an offer from a label they should be able to scare up some venture capitalists to provide financing. I’m sure that requires some serious studying as to how venture capitalism works, as well as researching how to contact VC’s, but if it can be pulled off isn’t that a better option than being the record labels bitches like these guys are?
January 20th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
@monkey It actually doesn’t take much study of Venture Capitalists to do a deal. It does take a solid business plan (e.g.marketing plan). I have had experience with VC’s & VCT’s. That’s how my last record was funded (not by a record label. We simply created our own label).
January 20th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
and by the way, it was $2.4 million dollars US via Venture Capitalists for that record (for a one territory release). So, if it can be done as a tiny unknown independent like myself, I’m fairly sure that anyone could do it (at least in 2006 they could. The financial world has changed a bit. However, if you can show them the money, they will follow with money.) The good thing is, by doing that, I’m not tied into anything. We were able to keep our commitments and did exactly what was planned. Plus, nobody could tell us whether our fans were allowed to embed videos or anything else. Having said that, there are areas where the major labels have a firm hold, for example national radio, prime time TV spots, etc. So, there are advantages and disadvantages. Like they said, EMI has to answer to their shareholders… so, any band or artist who does a direct deal with VC’s will have to answer not only to their fans, but, also (directly) to their shareholders. So, you really have to do everything that your business plan says (and then some) and if it goes tits up, you need to be able to prove that you put forth well beyond the ‘best endeavour’ clause.
But, in the long run, it’s very good for bands to establish themselves and run themselves as a business anyway (no matter who your investors or ‘bank’ is.) IMO
January 20th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
PS: having said all that, there are some things about VCT’s (not necessarily VC’s) that any band or artist doing a deal should look out for. A lot of times with some of the VCT shemes, the money has to go out before ‘year end’. So, in some situations, it can really mess up the ‘marketing’ drive. For example, if you are releasing product “A” and you end up releasing in the quarter 1 or 2 of a calendar year, you will have to spend all the money by the end of quarter 2 (even though it doesn’t make sense to do such a short term campaign) because the financial year ends in April (as an example). This could mean that although your business plan was to market over a given period time, you could be squeezed into exposing over only a few months. So, you have to be careful about calculating a time frame from which the monies are released (after due dilligence… accountants and lawyers don’t really work to ‘deadlines’, they are paid by the hour, trust that if the say ‘it’ll be done in 6 weeks, that really means around 4 months). Actually, this is probably a lot more to deal with than the average band or artist would want to. And, in the time it takes to actually read through a VCT deal, you could probably record another album (that’s how thick the paperwork is. We’re talking 4 thick Bible’s worth reading on A4 sheets.)
January 20th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
No doubt it’s a pain in the ass, the funny thing is I bet a record contract is no thinner than VCT deal, the only difference being the average band doesn’t read it. Hey, thanks for providing some details, sad to say even now I think a lot of up and coming bands STILL see a record contract as the only way to get financing, as this article shows.
January 24th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
@monkey I guess that most bands are willing to take any opportunity. In something as risky and speculative as the music industry, who could blame them. All they hear about is ‘record deals’. So, it’s natural for them to turn to labels for support. It’s kind of odd really, if you think about it. If you start a business and have and ‘idea’ or a ‘plan’, the natural thing to do is to seek angel investment. I think that what has happened in music over that past 50 years or so is that musician’s have been a little bit brainwashed into thinking that they only have the ‘label’ alternative. But, it’s been because radio and tv fell into that same line of thought. The PR was kind of bought out by the labels. A sort of trust was established between the media and the labels. Now, it’s still the same, but, the advent of internet and digital is slowly changing the power and control I guess. That’s putting things back into a proper playing field. IMO