Psonar in Deal with INgrooves for Micro-payment Streaming

31/01/2012

Extract courtesy of Midem News 2012 Edition 2

Psonar, the new music service offering a simple payment model to revolutionise access to streamed music in the same way that pay-as-you-go revolutionised mobile phone access, has signed a licensing deal with INgrooves, the digital music marketing and distribution firm, at midem.

Psonar Signs Deal with INgrooves

Psonar Signs Deal with INgrooves - L to R Psonar's Simon Lait and Martin Rigby, INgrooves' Alex Branson - (c) Midem News

Instead of offering a limited amount of free (ad-supported) use or monthly subscriptions, Psonar’s Pay-Per-Play (PPP) payment system is affordable and simple by charging one pence/one cent/one eurocent per track.

Users are able to pay via phone bills (pre-pay/contract), credit/debit cards or PayPal. “The deal offers a whole new way of reaching a whole new audience by driving content to kids who listen to music on mobile devices,” said Martin Rigby, UK-based Psonar’s CEO.

“The platform’s viral capacity offers a great capacity to music fans,” added Alex Branson, senior vice-president/managing director at INgrooves, which has 1 million tracks in its catalogue. “There are already acts who have 10 million streams on YouTube; Psonar is like that but more targeted, and can also encourage fans to go and buy.”


Why Independent Labels and Artists Get A Raw Deal from Digital Music Services (There Is An Alternative)

18/01/2012

The Way We Were
Promoting music has never been straightforward and people have always tried to game the system – radio pluggers being the obvious example in the age of vinyl records where radio airtime determined a song’s success or failure. But the structure of the industry was well-understood and the relationships between the players and, more crucially, their economic interests were aligned.

Digital Confusion
Now, with the rise of digital music, it’s different – some bands achieving considerable success without a label (OK Go’s Damian Kulash wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal) others giving their music away (e.g. Nine Inch Nails). Even major bands, including Radiohead with the ‘In Rainbows’ album, have experimented with a ‘Pay What You Want’ approach – although it was not successful enough for Radiohead to use it for subsequent albums.

A Tale of Three Artists (and Labels)
Out of this confusion it’s possible to discern three different outcomes for artists and, to some extent, labels.

      The Major Artist
      Major artists signed to major labels (Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner) can rely on their pre-existing reputation and following and/or the marketing effort of their label to gain mindshare among music fans. They monetize this through gigs (see this latest excellent Economist piece in a series on the economics of live music), conventional CD sales, digital downloads and subscription streaming services. Moreover, focussing on spend per consumer rather than revenue per track, the streaming music services have started to close the gap with iTunes in the revenues they routinely return to the major labels. This is an arrangement that can work well for both major label and major artist, especially if the latter is the author as well the performer of the music.
      The Emergent Artist
      Online services such as Bandcamp, ReverbNation, HypeMachine, SoundClick or SoundCloud serve emergent artists very well. Their primary objective is to gain the exposure that will translate into traffic to their own websites, sales of gig tickets and growth in their fan base. Monetizing their music is nowhere near as important as getting people to listen to it, like it and share that enthusiasm with other people.
      The Squeezed Independent (and Authors and Others)
      Independent artists and labels sit squarely in the middle of these and face a dilemma. They need their content to be available on streaming services so that millions of users can access it but they get little collateral marketing benefit, have to deal with opaque accounting and suffer poor pay-out rates. Yet they need to make their music available on Spotify or Deezer in order to maximise the chances of discovery by new fans. Even then there’s a further dilemma since a subscriber to an ‘all you can eat’ streaming service is unlikely to make the additional outlay to purchase a download when they can listen to the music as often as they like through the streaming service (especially if it offers offline caching on mobile devices).
      Independent artists don’t always have the fan base to fill a major gig venue so their live performance options are limited and generate poor returns. For the majority of independent artists, paid download of whole tracks and CD sales remain the principal ways they earn a living and online music service need to be complementary to these and not risk cannibalising them.
      The increasing focus of the subscription streaming services (and major labels) on revenue per user, rather than revenue per track played, disenfranchises everyone involved in the track except the label itself and, perhaps, the featured artist (though there’s even dissent there). Publishers and authors (i.e. composers and lyricists), managers, session musicians and anyone else involved in creating a song and turning it into a recording, rely on the revenue per track played to earn their livelihoods and revenue per user undermines these economics.

An Open and Transparent Digital Music Service
Now Psonar wasn’t created to right the wrongs of the music industry but its simple and transparent business model is good for both fans and artists & labels.

For fans, Psonar Pay-Per-Play offers easy, selective access to streaming music on a per-track, ‘pay as you go’, value-for-money basis. They can pay via mobile phone (pre-pay or contract), credit card or PayPal. They can also share music on Facebook, Twitter, blogs or email, where other people can pay to play the music shared. Fans can also gift plays via Facebook Messaging, Twitter DM, SMS or email having pre-paid for another person to listen.

For artists and labels, Psonar Pay-Per-Play has a single, straightforward tariff that’s the same for all distributors or labels, as well as clear and transparent accounting where every stream is monetized apart from promotional activity. Psonar offers labels the tools to build highly social, viral promotion campaigns that don’t involve unlimited free access to music and which can be fine-tuned to generate revenue or promote viral spread (or both) as the label judges best. Since all monetization is per track streamed, everyone with an economic interest in the music earns their share of the revenue generated.

Psonar is the digital music service that reaches the ‘mobile music generation’ – digital natives unwilling or unable to pay for subscription streaming – with rich, social features that allow artists and labels to seed the viral spread of new music confident about monetization, transparency and pay-out levels.


Why Digital Music Services Must Come Clean about Payments

03/11/2011

Streaming music services have got off to a bad start with artists and other rights holders (composers, publishers etc).  Several failed long before making any meaningful pay-outs to rights holders (e.g. Spiral Frog, Imeem), some were taken over before they could prove their business models and pay anything out (e.g. Lala) and those that have apparently been successful are criticised for the paucity of payments made (e.g. Spotify, Deezer or even YouTube).

Uniform Motion logo

Uniform Motion published their pay-out rates

There’s been a long-running spat between songwriters and Spotify over pay-out rates, triggered by a 2009 blog post which extracted data from the Swedish performing rights society (STIM) to show that Lady Gaga had received $167 payment as co-composer of ‘Poker Face’  (this doesn’t include any payment to her as performer, which would have been channelled through the label as master rights holder) from 1,000,000 plays of the song.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether this is a fair or reasonable level of payment to a composer, the issue is symptomatic of significant disquiet among songwriters.  In a BBC interview in 2010, Patrick Rackow, chairman of The British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (Basca), commented “At the moment, the amounts of money that are actually being received are tiny.  That might be because there is no money there. But there is no clear trail that can be established so that the songwriter can trace back what they ought to have got. These things are behind a blanket of secrecy, and that is extremely worrying.”

The songwriters have been joined by some high profile artists as well, including Coldplay according to an article in Friday’s Independent which stated that the band had refused to make ‘Mylo Xyloto’, its latest album, available on Spotify.  The article went on to say that the band had given no reason for its refusal but that EMI, Coldplay’s label, were “embarrassed” by the refusal, since it is a 2% shareholder in Spotify.

Whatever the merits and demerits of any particular digital music service whether it’s based on download like iTunes and Amazon, streaming like Napster and Spotify or an internet radio service like We7 or Pandora, it’s clearly sub-optimal to lose the confidence of artists and songwriters.  Nothing corrodes that confidence like secrecy and a lack of transparency which imply that the parties to a deal have something to hide. Which goes a long way to explain the chorus of agreement and dismay when Uniform Motion published their Spotify pay-out rates (and the rates they get from all other music sales channels) on Gizmodo.

At Psonar, we have a single tariff structure that is transparent to all and the same for all parties determined only by their role in creating, publishing and distributing that music.  Artists can see clearly how much the label, distributor and service provider itself (i.e. Psonar) is getting from each play of a track and since there is no industry ownership of Psonar there is no scope for a conflict of interests to arise.


SXSW – Psonar Trails Pay Per Play

09/03/2011

Fresh from the south of France, having trailed its new Pay Per Play service launching in selected territories in mid 2011 at MIDEM, Psonar is off to Austin TX for the 2011 South By South West Festival as part of the UKTI Digital Mission.

SXSW

While Steve Purdham, CEO of We7 was frank in a recent interview with the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones about the challenges facing digital music businesses – and didn’t succeed in dispelling Cellan-Jones scepticism evident in the post “…I’m still not clear how an ad-supported service like We7 – already in quite a crowded digital music market – is ever going to become sustainable” – Psonar is offering something that fits much better with the way people are engaging with digital music.

The ‘mobile music generation’ – especially teenagers – want to access particular music, when they want it and from any device. Therefore, it’s got to be on-demand streaming, not seeded internet radio.

For the mobile music generation music consumption is ephemeral, as Mark Mulligan of Forrester explained so well at MIDEM. They want access to music to be so cheap that it’s almost free – which Psonar Pay Per Play offers at 1c / 1 eurocent / 1p to listen to one track once – not pay £120 pa for a streaming music service.

And the mobile music generation is also the Facebook generation and online social behaviour is integral to the way they live their lives. They want to share music with their friends and Psonar’s ability to let people gift playlists to each other, where the donor has pre-paid for the recipient to listen, is deeply social and potentially hugely viral.

We think 2011 is going to be an interesting year!



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: