The experiment stemmed from the major problem of poor service-to-device journeys. As Mulligan says, “Pitifully few companies put anything like enough focus on the service-to-device journey (or if they do, they execute poorly). Just as much effort needs to be invested in ensuring services are fully integrated and optimized for supported devices as in building the services and devices themselves. Otherwise: great device + great service = poor experience.”

My experience with music streaming services is strictly limited to desktop devices. Even then, every streaming service seems to perform much differently through my computer. I’ve often wondered why, assuming that it was due to the squirrels that live inside my hard drive. Mulligan’s study provides a deeper look into the issue. Definitely worth reading.

So, which service-device combo offers the best music experience, according to Mulligan? You might be surprised to know that neither is made by Apple (although it comes close). Read on to learn for yourself.

~

Photo by juanpol, used under a Creative Commons license.

Billboard

The Billboard Music App Awards fetes the best music-related mobile apps the industry has to offer. In honor of the fact that MC Hammer is a judge, I’m considering submitting my “Can’t Touch This” app, which lets me know when I’m within 100 feet of anyone wearing parachute pants. But I digress.

Music apps are big business for, well, the music business. Apple‘s App Store surpassed the 2 billion download mark in 2009, and slews of labels and artists signed up for their own branded iPhone apps. Internet music streaming companies unveiled their own apps to enable subscribers to listen on the go. Pandora reached 60 million users recently thanks in large part to its app development for all major platforms. I could go on, but you get the picture: music apps = lots of opportunity.

The Music App Awards boast six categories, including honors for best artist-based app and best streaming music app. Submitting ain’t cheap, as the fee runs $100 per entry. Any of you developers who think you’ve got a killer music app nonetheless stands to gain a great deal from submitting: free press coverage and tons of swag are promised to the finalists.

July 30 is the submission deadline. MC Hammer awaits, so what are you waiting for?

Folks, I give you the PR2.

Yes, the world’s first fully automated beer-fetching robot. I see new products that range from the mundane to the somewhat innovative every day. None holds a candle to the PR2. And, dear reader, I want one.

The PR2 began, quite literally, out of thirst, specifically the kind of thirst that occurs at 5 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. So, a team of engineers at personal robotics firm Willow Garage developed a tool that autonomously delivers a cold one by request. Their criteria? It must be able to open a fridge, grab a beer of choice (as selected by a user via a software application known as Beer Me), navigate the office, and deliver said cold one to the requester using facial detection. That last component is critical, as you never, ever want your beer ending up in someone else’s hands.

Oh, and the PR2 can even use a bottle opener. The guys and girls at Willow Garage took this project from concept to reality in five days. Perhaps they should work for BP.

Check out this video to see PR2 in action.

Performance rights organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESACare ramping up efforts to collect music license fees from independent restaurants and similar retailers that play in-shop music or host live music events. And they’re willing to go to court for them.

Last week, ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers)–which represents more than 380,000 songwriters–filed suit against 21 restaurants, bars, and nightclubs over copyright infringement, claiming they performed music of ASCAP members without obtaining a license or failed to pay a licensing fee to do so.

Copyright law specifies that any venue that plays protected music, including recorded music, have a performance license. It covers a staggeringly large range of uses, from the casual jam session at your local coffee shop to a cheer leading competition at the Rose Bowl. PROs collect the fees from venues and distribute royalties to their members.

This is nothing new. ASCAP has worked on behalf of its members since 1914 and has been a key voice in various copyright law revisions over the years. What is new is the free-falling music industry, which is prompting PROs to ramp up their collection activities. That means increased scrutiny on smaller businesses and nonprofits that play music, and those folks aren’t too happy about it.

One Middleborough, Mass., cafe owner had to shutter a monthly open mike after PROs demanded a $332 annual fee. Coffeehouses across New England received multiple threatening letters and even had PRO reps walk through their doors demanding information. Many small business owners have since turned off their music completely to avoid further harrassment.

It’s not the first time PROs have been decried for aggressively seeking license fees. As Joan Anderman points out in The Boston Globe, “The PROs have been criticized for years for their aggressive stance; in the mid-1990s ASCAP bowed to public outcry after attempting to collect licensing fees from the Girl Scouts for singing campfire songs. (They now charge the scouts a symbolic $1 a year.)”

But PROs insist that retailers pony up what songwriters and publishers are due, since music adds value to their operations. Business owners don’t go to the electric company asking for free service. Why should they think the same of music?

Penalties for playing a copyright-protected song without a license are steep, from $750 to $30,000 per song. ASCAP files up to 300 infringement lawsuits annually; BMI, 200. Most cases are settled out of court; those that do go to trial rarely go well for the defendant.

Retailers aren’t the only ones feeling the PRO squeeze either. New England musicians have suddenly found large holes in their touring schedules as a result of venues putting the kibosh on their music programs. Because most small businesses can’t afford the annual fees requested by all three PROs, recent efforts have aimed to waive nonprofits, nontraditional venues, and coffeehouses with below-50 capacity from paying them. However, that could be some time coming.

Creating a blanket awareness that music is indeed a commodity through the use of subpoenas seems a tad ominous, but it appears to be the dominant tool PROs will use for the forseable future.

~

Photo by Zach Alexander, used under a Creative Commons license.

While Google has no direct ties to the sites, the fact that it links to them makes the company culpable in copyright infringement. Or something like that. Sites like MegaUpload, SendSpace, and UserShare all boast free access to tracks by BPI artists such as Eminem, K’Naan, and Michael Bublé.

Google has previously indicated a willingness to work with music rights groups, deleting links to Pirate Bay last year, for instance. However, as The Guardian reports, the search engine merely indexes websites rather than hosting actual files. So, links can reappear even after Google deletes them.

Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t targeting Google for having certain links show up in its search engine kinda like prosecuting the clouds for acid rain? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the Mountain View, Calif. company, I’m just curious whether it fully deserves the criticism. So, I went to its rivals and tested some of the same search strings that the BPI is fighting Google over.

At Yahoo!, typing “dizzee rascal dirtee disco” yields a radio “rip” on the very first page of search results. The very same link shows up on the first page of results at Bing as well. I additionally found links to illegal downloads when I type “k’naan wavin’ flag download” in the search fields of both sites. Are they just as responsible? What about the websites that actually host these downloads?

I’m not sure what the right solution to this problem is, but I’m disinclined to think that shaking down the biggest players is necessarily the right path.

What do you think?

It’s pretty simple. Real bands like the Beatles, Bob Seger, and AC/DC don’t allow their music to be sold on iTunes. So, tribute bands–really good ones–are re-recording their music and selling it instead. The result? The Sam Morrison Band (Bob Seger) has enjoyed more than 100,000 digital downloads. Led Zepagain had more than half a million before the real Zep finally allowed its music for sale through the service (too bad Phil Collins has his music on iTunes, I was thinking I might be on to something).

Selling your tribute act’s music on iTunes may not hold sway with longtime fans, but it does garner a younger, newer audience. Digital music buyers buy what they like, even if it’s not by the original act. It also helps that the original doesn’t sell music on iTunes or similar sites.

So, the next time someone dismisses your tribute band, go record an album and post it on iTunes. Making a living at music is hard enough. There’s nothing fake about making a little scratch from your talent.

~

Photo by Eric the Fish (2010), used under a Creative Commons license.

Speculation abounds, but one point rises above the rest: any competitive advantage that AEG Live can build against the industry’s 800-pound gorilla, Live Nation, is well worth the effort.

Company CEO Randy Phillips sounded off on some of that speculation a few days after the Post article appeared, clarifying that the competitive advantages lay more on the labels’ side of the court. “We’ve been approached by every one of the majors, who are trying to re-jigger their business model to include more rights and revenue streams from the artists they’re in business with, the so-called ’360 deals,’” Phillips told Billboard.biz.

Diversification seems to be the new play in music industry circles, as labels increasingly look to partnerships to stay relevant and profitable. The concert promotion segment could be one ticket. Late last year, the British Phonographic Industry and PRS for Music released a report with the startling forecast that, sometime this year, live concert revenues payable to artists would overtake label revenues and record sales for the first time ever. That was just in the UK, but a similar scenario is not outside the realm of possibility for the US concert market.

Such 360 deals could become the industry norm. Live Nation signed up Madonna and U2 in 2008: for U2, the company handles all touring, merchandise, and website operations; Madonna’s deal is much larger, giving Live Nation a stake in future music, movie, and TV deals. Madonna walked away from Universal in favor of the Live Nation deal, and industry observers suggest promoters have been much more adept at understanding and implementing Web marketing for artists.

Of course, big shows are the moneymakers for the concert industry, and the industry must deal with the fickle nature of its artists. U2 and Christina Aguilera have been forced to push back tours to 2011, and the Eagles, John Mayer, and Simon and Garfunkel have canceled several dates. Industry chatter has predicted a gloomy summer concert season amid slow ticket sales, but the secondary ticket market is thriving, with pricing at or above the primary market. That actually bodes well for concert promoters, says analyst Ben Mogil at investment bank Thomas Weisel Partners.

And thriving ticket sales in a post-recession market has to make an impression on a record label. It may not be a perfect marriage at the outset, but as long as record sales decline, expect the promoter-label slow dance to continue.

~

Photo by Andrew Maiman, used under a CC-Share Alike license.

Whitesnake–purveyors of super-tight snakeskin pants and hair-metal anthems including one you probably know but don’t tell your friends: “Here I Go Again”–have announced a new release that should tantalize or terrorize the taste buds, depending on your palette. Ladies and gents, I give you Whitesnake Zinfandel.

It’s the real deal, folks. The ’80s band has partnered with De La Montanya Winery & Vineyards to bring us, the masses, a wine that is sure to, in lead singer David Coverdale’s words, “complement any and all grown-up friskiness and hot tub jollies.”

Pardon me, just threw up in my mouth a little. All kidding aside, it’s hardly the first such celebrity sponsored alcoholic infusion. In fact, wine has become something of a new trend among connoisseurs of all things metal. A few years ago, Tool frontman Maynard James Keenan threw the curtain back on Caduceus, his Arizona-based winery that churns out award-winning wines that have been highlighted in no less than Wine Spectator. Motley Crue chief Vince Neil dabbled in winemaking in the early 2000s with Vince Vineyards, as have Kiss, the Rolling Stones, and Foghat.

To be sure, most of these celebrity wine ventures are purely licensing deals, with Keenan’s pursuit the exception. Either way, getting into the wine business is probably a good idea for those about to rock, if recent sales trends are any indication. In 2009, online wine sales grew nearly 30 percent from the previous year, while direct-to-consumer sales inched up 3 percent. California wine shipments tallied a 0.2 percent rise, though the value of those wines declined as recession-wary buyers traded down to discount bottles.

Wine buying has reached a peculiar intersection, as boomers continue to drive the industry and their millennial offspring start to engage in the market. With an increasingly younger audience joining in on the fun, it’s a no-brainer that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the like have proven formidable marketing venues for winemakers and proprietors. Slap the Whitesnake name on the bottle, and you’ve got a product ready-made for a presumably sizable niche market.

So, dear reader, if you find yourself in the mood for a mid-priced “bodacious, cheeky little wine, filled to the brim with the spicy essence of sexy, slippery Snakeyness,” look no further than (ahem) Whitesnake Zin.

Roger Faxon

If the latest management shakeup at EMI is indicative of anything, it’s that the label fully intends to leverage its massive archive to survive in the future.

Roger Faxon’s promotion to group CEO was announced this week as the troubled conglomerate aims to reposition itself as a “comprehensive rights management company.” Faxon’s 16-year history with the company and his previous stint as film-industry veep will no doubt be tested as EMI charts a new course through rough waters.

“More music is being used than ever before, despite the continued decline in global music revenues,” the firm said in its press release outlining the executive lineup. ”As a result, the management structure of EMI is being changed to enable the company to reposition itself as a comprehensive rights management company that can take full advantage of all global opportunities in all markets for music.”

EMI’s struggles, loosely chronicled in these pages, took a dramatic turn earlier this year when acquisition talks failed and CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti abandoned ship in the same month. Parent firm Terra Firma stepped in with an estimated $183 million cash infusion in May to keep the company from spiraling into foreclosure.

Faxon’s appointment and the handful of executive changes that accompanied it suggest further job cuts could be in EMI’s future, writes Gordon Masson in Variety. It also points to a corporate desire to better marry the company’s recorded music and music publishing operations, as Masson notes, “both businesses heavily rely on working with rival companies, as most artists tend to split those deals rather than sign contracts with the same conglomerate.”

That, in turn, implies a lighter commitment to breaking new artists in favor of relying more heavily on selling publishing rights to its enormous back catalog–which includes some little bands like the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles.

What this means for newer EMI artists is less tangible. Popular belief has it that an artist doesn’t need a major label to become a massive success anymore. Recent data suggests otherwise. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) unveiled earlier this year that record labels spend more on research and development than practically any other industry. Music industry A&R and marketing efforts tally some $5 billion annually, representing an astounding 30 percent of sales revenue.

However, new talent investment is not exactly profitable, at least at the outset. One million dollars is the going rate for breaking an artist these days, and that’s conservative. Many labels never see a return on that money. Columbia Records’ UK chief Mike Smith recently told Billboard that long-term profitability stems from a successful catalog. More current artists are licensing their albums to different labels, ostensibly denying one label any rights to their back catalogs in the future. 

EMI’s plan to plum its rich existing back catalog makes more sense when framed in that context. Of course, less emphasis on new talent means less recording, and less recording could mean turning Abbey Road into a museum. Let’s cross our collective fingers that that doesn’t happen.