Now Google, its stock price down 30% for the year, is releasing a study that claims that search advertising has value as a branding vehicle, too.  One supposes their hope is that advertisers will pour additional money into Google AdWords now that there’s extra undocumented value as a branding vehicle. 

In a MediaPost interview, Kevin Kells, Google's CPG Industry Director, said "Typically, ROI models for search don't give any value to a search impression, but this study finds that there's brand value in a search impression, particularly in top-of-mind awareness and purchase intent.”

The study exposed about 2400 searchers to one generic search term such as "drinks," or "make-up."  The pages included search results and paid search ads -- including some brands, but excluding others.  Respondents were then given a survey designed to measure brand impact in the areas of aided brand awareness, unaided brand awareness, purchase consideration, and purchase intent.

The survey results?  When polled immediately after seeing a search results page (SERP), respondents remembered those brands displayed on the page better than those brands that were not on the SERP page. In other words, respondents only recalled seeing things that they actually saw.

Up until now, I have only weighed in on possible ad-supported models for actually distributing and downloading music files.  But a new opinion  penned by Silicon Alley Insider raises the question of ad-supported music streaming, too.  And, like I’ve also chimed, it’s largely the fault of music labels and the RIAA.

Now, my basic problem with streaming music services is that they’re basically the same as radio – which has always been free.  XM and Sirius tried pay radio (and I admit their product is far superior than FM) but we all know how poorly these businesses performed. 

As much as you’d like to think that streaming services like Imeem are better than radio – it just isn’t true.  A really good radio broadcaster actually has better service than anything users can program themselves.  As evidence, I site a recent Pew study that says Radio listening is how 83% of Americans discover new music.  In other words, the public relies on Radio for it’s ability to expose them to songs they don’t yet know – and this service goes right out the window if the service is solely an on-demand product.   

No. I’m afraid the price point has already been set in this streaming market.  And the price is nil.

But now, the federal district court judge who presided over the trial may have changed his mind.  Judge Michael Davis of Duluth, Minn., has stated that he might have "committed a manifest error of law."  He is considering negating the RIAA victory and ordering a new trial.

 
A reader and friend responded to a previous post of mine about the “democratization”  of the recording industry.  In particular he objected to technology advocates who advocate P2P sites in favor of retail music.  You can read my original post.  Here are some excerpts from his comments, which I find representative: 

Technology provided new consumer outlets, but never provided Label services like some would inappropriately claim. I knew the technology sites would one day have to pay to become "retail stores," just as Napster was advocating at the time. But they were never trying to become "Record Labels." Labels are banks who give artists money to record, tour, buy equipment, advertise, publicize, sell, distribute, hire attorneys, accountants, assistants and more, all of which are still needed, even with Internet "retail stores" like iTunes…

The notion of "democratization" as used by technologists toward music seems as absurd as when used by the Bush regime, and I find them similar. We live in a world, for better or worse, driven by "capitalization" which technologists seem hellbent to overthrow when practiced by the music industry. Yet, if the technologists do not 'capitalize" their own companies and VC funding dries up, there is no "democratizing" technologists employed there any longer.

I personally find P2P users bombing the legal music industry to be no different than Bush bombing with technology in illegal wars and using illegal wiretaps that overthrow even more rights guaranteed by the American Constitution. Those same "democratizing" technologists provide the wiretaps, provide the smart bombs, and agree with right-wing politics most of the time, as suggested in an article about Facebook published by The Guardian in which the author refers to those technologists as "neo-conservative libertarians." Maybe you are one too? The last 8-years of all this bombing by Bush and his technology friends may have done more to overthrow Democratic Rights than to provide the "democratization" of anything.

 --David Bean, Digital Music Professional

As anyone who ever befriended a struggling artist, I’m sympathetic to the plight of musicians.  I’m sympathetic with those trying to get recording contracts; and I’m sympathetic to those who have recording contracts and find their careers going nowhere.

But I have less sympathy for major record labels.  First, I believe generally they are in the business of generating “stars”, rather than promoting artists.  To this end, they spend a huge amount of capital on “artist development” and then maximize their investments by focusing on highly-profitable artists while allowing the bulk of their portfolio to go unsupported.  The result is homogenization and a dead-end career for many very talented artists.

But mostly, I believe major labels have become so entrenched in their money-making system that they are unable to accept and take advantage of the changing technology landscape to benefit their clients.  Make no mistake, even if albums disappeared and the price of a song fell to 25¢, there are still profitable business models for artists and labels – but rather than adopt to these models, major labels find it easier to abuse their customers and their clients in order to squeeze every penny from each constituent.  In this, major labels are serving shareholders rather than artists or consumers.

Dear Bill:

I welcome discussing this notion by some technologists claiming "democratization" when applied to the music industry. My own experience is that Musicians want their creations, inventions and writings to produce "capitalization."

As I told the magazine Red Herring when I was interviewed back in 2000, it's not the Labels that will be destroyed by Internet Technology P2P, it will be the music retail stores like good old Tower Records, beginning with the illegal and unfair competition from Napster and Kazaa technology giving away Tower's products for free. Technology provided new consumer outlets, but never provided Label services like some would inappropriately claim. I knew the technology sites would one day have to pay to become "retail stores," just as Napster was advocating at the time. But they were never trying to become "Record Labels." Labels are banks who give artists money to record, tour, buy equipment, advertise, publicize, sell, distribute, hire attorneys, accountants, assistants and more, all of which are still needed, even with Internet "retail stores" like iTunes. And the artists usually do not have to declare bankruptcy if they don't pay the Label back, which happens over 90% of the time.

That Email is #1 is not surprising.  And nobody should be surprised that Search is the other big traffic driver (although I consider search to be a navigational tool rather than a destination -- so it's #2 spot is largely irrelevant. )  What's surprising is that Online Banking placed third, followed by photo, video and data sharing; mapping & directions; and online shopping.

Gartner's findings generally held up across all regions, educational levels and income levels, with one major exception: Teenagers.  For teens, the survey found that music downloading jumped into second place, while instant messaging appeared in fifth place. 

Apparently,  teens have greater interest than other demographics in using the Internet to download music, stream video and play games.  But the younger demo also was more likely to use wider and varied communications features, including instant messaging, file sharing, communicate via social networks, chat rooms, message boards and blogs.

At first YouTube complied, but Lenz argued back, saying that the song was an obvious case of fair use. YouTube agreed and re-posted the song. This is when the story gets fun…

The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation supported YouTube in court. The case pivoted on when a copyright holder may legitimately complain about possible infringement.

EFF claimed that the use of the song in Lenz’s video was obviously fair use – and that the label’s demand to remove the song was essentially harassment. The specific law they cited was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which recently has defined copyright on the Web.

Not understanding that discretion is the better part of valor, Universal turned and counter-sued the EFF. The big label argued that its initial complaint to YouTube was in itself a form a free speech – and the EFF suit represented a breach of Universal’s first-amendment rights. (Universal argued that use of the song wasn’t “obviously” a fair use – so a suit was warranted.)