27/03/17 - Facebook and Twitter could pay the price for hate speech (58)

27/03/17 - Facebook and Twitter could pay the price for hate speech (58)

The German government has announced plans to impose fines on social networks which don't move quickly enough in remove undesirable content like fake news from their platforms. This will be enforced through social media companies being required to 'explain rules and complaint procedures clearly to users and follow up on each complaint.' Any content that is clearly illegal has to be taken down within 24 hours while other content of this nature must be removed or blocked within 7 days. The belief behind some of these measures being enforced is that internet companies aren't doing enough in terms of their responsibility with Facebook and Twitter according to the federal minister for justice and consumer protection missing their 'chance to improve their takedown practices' calling for the need for legal regulations. This is cited as being an extremely important moment in what has so far been a struggle between democracy and digital technology, with the latter now being an area where oddly enough, companies increasingly determine what people can access on their platforms. While in the early days of the web this would've been excusable, in a time where digital giants are dominant evident how half of the public turned to social media to learn about the 2016 presidential election and the majority of Americans get their news in general via social media, it is extremely questionable. And while 'shirking' this responsibility is understandable in the sense that it would be quite costly to the giants, it's still an aspect which they need to uphold. There is still though, the argument that placing such a responsibility on social media companies could pose threats to things like freedom of speech and in that sense they shouldn't even be treated like 'conventional publishers' in the first place. However perhaps a substantial fine is all that's actually needed to really get the companies to behave in the way that they want them to.

• The German government has published a draft law imposing fines of up to €50m on social networks that fail to promptly remove undesirable content like fake news and hate speech from their platforms 

When content that's effectively hate speech is concerned, a fine of up to €50m appears to be a good way of making social media companies consider the issue as more significant. It'll have to be kept an eye out on as to whether we'll see this legislation even being passed in the first place since at the moment it only exists as a draft, however if it does what'll truly be interesting if social media companies really embrace more responsibility because and also if other nations will follow suit with their actions.

27/03/17 - Internet firms must do more to tackle online extremism, says No 10 (57)

27/03/17 - Internet firms must do more to tackle online extremism, says No 10 (57)

The prime minister's spokesman is the latest of many to criticise social media companies for their handling of fake news. In his words, firms like Google and Facebook 'can and must do more' in their effort to expunge extremist/inflammatory material from the web. Again talks of responsibility arise in saying that the companies should be ensuring that material of this nature isn't disseminated by any means. The Westminster attack is an event that has caused this responsibility to be brought into question yet again. The availability of material that promotes violent extremism is another concern that has been reignited here, however No 10 have clarified that they aren't stating that it had been a direct contributor to the perpetrator's radicalisation. Although the spokesperson did say that the priority is to stop radical material appearing online at all, he didn't comment on whether or not the government would actually legislate if social media companies didn't tighten their current procedures. With this comes the recognition that the 'fight against terrorism and hate speech has to be a joint' saying that while government is doing their best to monitor the issue, social media companies need to do their part. Boris Johnson also contributed to the conversation stating that he also believes that social media companies have the greatest level of responsibility in invigilating and taking down any 'corrupting and polluting' material. This all comes after the House of Commons home affairs committee's chair, Yvette Cooper came to findings that Twitter and Facebook 'were too slow to deal with hate-filled content' while YouTube's enforcement of their own community standards was 'a joke.' Additionally, debate on whether internet companies should publish photos and videos of terrorist incidents as they happen is being launched, with Facebook saying that: 'we take swift action to remove it from Facebook and work with law enforcement and security agencies as appropriate.'

This article is representative of another moral panic that new and digital media is contributing to: extremist material. It appears that content of this nature is simply too easily available on social media platforms and its presence acts as a big danger to society. It'll have to be seen in the next few months how exactly social media companies react to try and increase their role in tackling online extremism, if they even will in the first place. Not only this, but we could also see more removal of things like video content that display terrorist acts taking place, as the position that Facebook seem to be taking on it is completely negative unlike the PM's spokesman who conversely says that the content is useful to institutions like the police.

NDM independent case study: research

NDM independent case study: research

Number 122 - The Changing Face of the Music Industry

• 'The music industry is a complex industry which is made up of conglomerates [...] others which are considered to be 'indie' (independent) labels such as Rounder Records and Concord Records who make music for niche audiences.'
• 'Most indie labels have had to develop affiliations with major companies so that they can effectively distribute their music. Examples include Def Jam (Universal), Aftermath (Interscope/Universal)...

Even the so-called independent labels will find themselves relying on the power of the majors to be totally successful in the industry.

• 'The music industry wants to protect their position of dominance. The five major record labels; Sony, Universal, BMG, EMI and Time Warner monopolize the market when it comes to sales of music, leaving less than 20% for the hundreds of independent record labels or indie labels. Furthermore when the independents get too big or an artist or group starts to garner more of a fan following these major companies usually pick up the artist or group or buy the record label, this is called Horizontal Integration.'

Here, it's represented that what major record labels will often do to prevent their sales from lessening too significantly is buy out budding artists and indies. This merger eliminates the threat that was posed to them at one point, helping them maintain the monopoly power that they possess.

• 'According to www.songrights.com music companies give between 9% and 12% to the artist and the rest is profit for their company.'

This statistic here is representative of the fact that at least in the traditional business model, almost 100% of the time, when it comes to record labels and artists, the record labels will be the main beneficiaries from a monetary standpoint.

• 'However, this traditional model is changing. Developments in technology and the emergence of the Internet mean that artists have the potential to reach audiences without the need for a major company and where once recording equipment was expensive it was out of reach for the average person; it is now widely available at a low cost. You can purchase sophisticated music production software for a few pounds on your mobile device or tablet.'

Increased availability and accessibility of music recording equipment to the 'average person' takes away some of the reliance on record labels that once used to exist. People can establish their own successful music careers so long as they know how to use things like production software.

EXP: 'Damon Albarn, for example, recently produced a Gorillaz album in its entirety using software for a few pounds on the iPad.'

• 'In many cases artists are able to promote and distribute music digitally without the assistance of a record label. Unsigned artists can sell their music on iTunes, have it streamed on Spotify or Soundcloud and produce their own videos for YouTube.'

This section here is representative of the impact that new and digital media is having on the music industry. As said above, it's now easier for people to launch their own careers without the help of a label through digital services such as Spotify and Soundcloud. Independence is actually something that can be upheld.

• In an era of fragmented platforms, file sharing, and non-traditional routes to market, the music industry is facing various challenges. It has had to react to change: new formats, new technology and new business models mean an industry in a constant state of transformation. This has been particularly obvious in the way that audiences are dictating how they want to consume their music...'

This is representative of how new and digital media is not only affecting the music industry from the standpoint of the record labels, but also audiences. They are granted more options in how they would like to listen to music whether it be through mobile phone, tablet or laptop.

• 'How audiences are purchasing and consuming music has changed dramatically with the emergence of digital technology and the music industry has struggled to keep up at times and this is especially true when it comes to changing audience behaviours. One of the most problematic issues that the industry is facing is the ‘culture of free’. In recent years consumers are less willing to pay for their music and as a consequence piracy and file-sharing have seen the industry lose billions over the last decade. 
• According to the Institute for Policy Innovation global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year

We're seeing a negative of the impact of new and digital media on the music industry here as it led to a development of a culture where people don't deem it fit to pay for content. This has meant that huge losses have been incurred by record labels.

• 'In order to combat this music streaming services such as Spotify have worked in conjunction with the industry to try offer audiences the opportunity to listen to music but not actually download it, which means it is not being shared YouTube has also placed ID content censorship on videos to stop music being downloaded.'

Temporary measures have had to be imposed by some of the digital services to help prevent the illegal downloading going on. This is representative of the sheer magnitude that the downloading takes place at.

• 'One way it is doing this is through saturating the market with what Mulligan calls ‘The Superstar Economy.’
• 'The Internet was meant to weaken the dominance of superstar artists in the music industry and enrich the smaller, niche music creators. But new research suggests that this “long tail” theory is wrong: superstars are capturing the vast majority of music revenues and their share is increasing – not decreasing – because of the rise of digital services like iTunes and Spotify.'
• 'The top 1 per cent of artists the likes of Rihanna and Adele accounted for 77 per cent of recorded music income in 2013'
• 'Most digital music services have catalogues of more than 20m tracks are not listened to.'

This 'Superstar Economy' represents the fact that while we may be aware of the fact that we have more choice as to what music we can listen to on streaming services, deep down we still collectively end up listening to the same 'superstar artists' that we used to. This can be seen with how they account for the lion share of recorded music income in 2013. It could be said that a situation like this could be likened to that of Pareto's Law when talking about traditional news institutions. What we see is a 'minority of musicians always serving a majority of listeners.'

• ‘The theory of the Long Tail is that our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of “hits” (mainstream products and markets) and toward a huge number of niches in the tail. As the costs of production and distribution fall, especially online, there is now less need to lump products and consumers into one-size-fits-all. In an era without the constraints of physical shelf space and other bottlenecks of distribution, narrowly-targeted goods and services can be as economically attractive as mainstream fare.’

The Long Tail theory serves as a representation of what we can see now within the music industry. There are a variety of products from a variety of different producers that satisfy, a variety of different wants. 'One-size-fits-all' doesn't apply to products to the extent that it once used to before developments in new and digital media. Rather we see a more narrow targeting of certain types of music to those people that it appeals to.

• 'The marketplace has shown us that humans are just as much wandering sheep in need of herding online as offline.' (Mark Mulligan)

This statement by Mark Mulligan is representative of this sheep before that still exists even online within the music industry. Rather than people embrace what appeals directly to them as individual people, they end up 'following one another' in admiration of superstar artists that thousands if not millions of other people around the world also enjoy.

• ‘Don’t make people pay for music, let them.’ - Amanda Palmer
• Artists like Amanda Palmer are trying to circumvent the big labels and do things differently by using the idea of crowdsourcing. This is where an artist asks their fans or anyone who may be interested to fund their project and be given something special in return. In Palmer’s case it was a mixture of invitations to her live performance art events and the album in its many forms.

In the absence of a record label, crowdsourcing is another measure which artists can use to help fund their careers. Kickstarter is one of these crowdfunding platforms and they can be viewed as being particularly beneficial for both consumers and artists with the former being in the sense that in exchange for money you can get things like tracks from artists and the latter in that they can actually receive money from consumers to fund their careers.

• 'Palmer’s route into this way of making money form music came from her acrimonious split with the record company. She was originally signed to Road Runner records. However when the company said they wanted her to remove her non-airbrushed stomach from an album cover as well have her do more ‘mainstream’ music she left. Her first release with the label sold 25,000 copies but they considered it a failure. She decided that she could no longer work in an industry that didn’t allow the artist total control.'

Palmer's route could help show the fact that developments in new and digital media in the music industry have allowed for more autonomy for artists in their careers that a record label obviously wouldn't allow for. 



MM34 - December 2010: The Change Issue

Changes in the Music Industry: From Labels to Laptops

• 'The conventional industry models have been challenged, largely due to the emergence of new technologies and new ways for music lovers to listen, and own, the music they love.'
• 'In the old days, working musicians would hope (ultimately) to be signed to a record label.'
• 'The record company would pay the artist a sum of money as an ‘advance’, to record some material, and specify how much the artist would have to sell before that advance would be paid off – then the artist would start to get a cut of the profits (usually about 15%). The label would have the records and CDs physically manufactured, and use its distribution and marketing network to get the product into record shops, and to get promotion via radio, TV, magazines and so on. In the meantime, the label would arrange tours, with all the accompanying merchandising, as another revenue stream, and the publishing arm of the label (or an independent publisher) would collect royalties from all the airplay and other usage of the artist’s materials, taking a cut themselves.'

This 'complex, old-fashioned model' displays a lot of the reliance that's placed on record labels by artists, handling essentially everything that the artist doesn't such as recording facilities and distribution networks.

• 'With the emergence of Napster and other file-sharing sites more than ten years ago, it became obvious that the internet offers a perfect way for artists to distribute music. While Napster made it easy for users to share other people’s music, it wasn’t a massive leap to imagine that artists could use the same technology to promote and distribute their own music, thus cutting out two of the important functions of a record company. In this new world, there would be no place for physical records; instead music would live as data on people’s computers.'

This here shows how even in its early days, new and digital media was having a massive impact on the (traditional) music industry. The role of the record label was becoming increasingly minimised with its expansion and this is something that would only become more of the case in later years.

• 'The music rights organisation PRS for Music reported this year that CD and DVD revenues fell by £8.7 million in 2009, but digital revenues grew by £12.8 million.'

This statistic serves as proof for the contraction of the usefulness of record labels. As digital became more and more of the 'in thing' across time, the more traditional forms of media started to go out of fashion being bought by less consumers.

• The ubiquitous MySpace emerged as (among other things) a platform for artists to host, promote and distribute music. The site has famously launched careers, including that of Lily Allen. Allen was actually signed to a record label at the time her massive popularity on MySpace broke. However, as the first high-profile artist successfully to promote themselves via the site, she highlighted the importance of the medium. Allen’s story is a good example of how early-adopters can use the free technology available at their fingertips.

Lilly Allen's success story is representative of how the e-media platform acts as a perfect avenue for those who don't have access to something like a record label to get their music out there. Even though this was prior to the popularity of services like Spotify it's representative of how the e-media platform has allowed for more entrants in the music industry. 

• Sites like Spotify satiate music lovers who want to listen to, then purchase, music – their 4 million song database is available to any listener who doesn’t mind putting up with occasional adverts, and it’s this advertising revenue that funds the venture. However, it doesn’t necessarily offer an avenue for new music to be heard.

We're seeing here the alternative that Spotify provides in being able to listen to a wide range of music free of cost with just adverts here and there which of course funds the service. However it's also said that it doesn't necessarily give us the change to hear new music and really it's just what tends to be in the mainstream. It does have to be noted though that this magazine was released in December 2010, so it will more likely than not be the case that it has actually from how it once was.

MM53 - September 2015

• As of December 2014, 75% of Spotify's 60 million users worldwide (up 20 million in a month!) were using the free tier, with just 25% paying the subscription of £9.99 per month. Spotify's user base has doubled since 2013 but the proportion of users on the paid tier - 25% - looks to have stayed roughly the sane

So looking at this, it can be told that Spotify actually mainly serves people looking for free music. This 100% reflects the attitudes of consumers today which differs hugely from what was the case say 20 years ago where music had to be listened to through physical means e.g. CDs, vinyls etc.

• As Spotify explains, the free tier that 75% of users are experiencing contains adverts, all of which advertisers have paid to place there. This revenue all goes into Spotify’s coffers, as do the subscription fees for the paid tier, and it pays 70% of the overall revenue they collect to rights holders – in other words, to the artists

This statistic here displays the workings of Spotify. While it does offer a free tier to consumers which most tend to take up, the ads that get placed within it are how it obtains revenue if you ignore the paid tier. 70% of the overall revenue is what the actual artists end up receiving so it does seem like quite a good cut for them.

• According to its figures, the amount of royalties that Spotify pays to artists doubled from 2013 to 2014, from half a billion to a cool billion US dollars.

It's made clear from this statistic here that Spotify does pay quite a considerably large amount of the revenue that it gains from subscriptions and adverts to artists.

• It’s not as simple as that though. As reported by The Trichordist’s blog (‘Artists For An Ethical and Sustainable Internet’), 80% of the revenue Spotify pays out comes from the 40% of streams made via the paid tier. In terms of collecting royalties for artists, the free tier is still very much the ‘gateway drug’ of the whole platform.

This statistic here shows that what really happens is that the most of the money that Spotify ends up paying out is revenue obtained from adverts rather than paid subscriptions. This is particularly interesting as it displays the attitude that it is thought to be widespread today of people not wanting to have to pay for the content that they're accessing. 

• However, there’s no denying that, after a long period in which the music industry seemed filled with inertia about how to combat piracy, Spotify has finally seized upon a working business model that does return some real money to artists and rights-holders. What Spotify has realised is that audiences in 2015 are less concerned with owning music than having access to it, and are willing to pay for that privilege. It presents a variety of figures on their website illustrating how all this translates into pay for artists, and it also claims to have turned many downloaders of pirated music into legal users of its free tier - no doubt as part of the shift away from owning, towards simply accessing media

This section does stand out as being quite true in terms of Spotify's business model. It acknowledges that we live in a time where free content is what most people are familiar with and utilises this while still actually paying artists for their content that's getting consumed. It is true that people who were frequent illegal downloaders past through a service like Spotify will more likely than not change their ways. It also has to be said that this insistence on accessing media as oppose to actually owning it might be why a service like Spotify is doing as well as it is today. Ownership was a thing more of the past and isn't valued as highly as it once was.

• It was reported by TechCrunch, however, back in 2009, that the major labels had received an 18% equity share in Spotify, and were receiving more favourable terms than indie labels. 
• In a complex unpicking of the way streaming services work, Talking Heads musician David Byrne asked in The Guardian: Are these services evil? Are they simply a legalised version of file-sharing sites such as Napster and Pirate Bay – with the difference being that with streaming services the big labels now get hefty advances? [...] What’s at stake is not so much the survival of artists like me, but that of emerging artists and those who have only a few records under their belts.

With this you begin to question the fairness of the system that Spotify has got in place. While artists do end up receiving 70% of the revenue obtained by the company, the issue is that the major record labels are who benefit from them the most because they have a share in Spotify. With this, upcoming artists face more of an uphill battle when trying to gain success.

• Might we end up looking back on the MySpace years as a golden age in which talent could – briefly – bypass the corporate world and come straight to us? Over the last few years, some artists have been less than enthusiastic about what they perceive as the restoration of the status quo.
• Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, for example, has described Spotify and its position as ‘gatekeeper’ in an interview with Sopitas.com as ‘like the last fart, the last desperate fart of a dying corpse’.

Just like the concept of the 'Superstar Economy' we could just be ending up in a position where the most popular artists are the ones that we end up listening too on services like Spotify rather than exploring. This description of it as a gatekeeper by Thom Yorke is quite interesting too as it suggests that it has a level of control in what we have access to and also what we don't.

• As artists, rather than resist them, I believe it is in our long-term interest to engage with the streaming services – which is what I am trying to do with my talking playlist. This approach has borne some fruit with Spotify – their royalty system is relatively transparent. They will let an artist see how many plays they have had and show them how much they have paid to their record company for those plays. The artist can then look at how much they have received from their label and do the math[s].

As said by singer-songwriter and social activist Billy Bragg, it appears that engagement with streaming services is the best thing that artists of today can do. Things like the transparency that it delivers in terms of the royalties that you get paid are things that would appeal particularly to artists themselves.

• Neilsen SoundScan’s global figures reveal that 70% of the music consumed in the first half of 2014 was streamed or downloaded – with streaming up a staggering 52% from the previous year
• With the news that 50 million songs 
• were streamed in January 2015 (double 
• the previous January’s), and that from 
• February 2015, the UK album chart (as 
• well as the singles chart) now factors 
• in streams, the business models of 
• platforms like Spotify, and indeed 
• YouTube, will be incredibly important – 
• and increasingly under scrutiny – as the 
• landscape changes permanently and 
• streaming becomes the norm. Whether 
• all artists and all labels – majors and 
• indies – get fairly recompensed is a 
• question that lingers.

This statistic just represents the widespread usage of streaming services today with the majority of songs in a whole year being consumed by streaming. Noting that this was 2014 if you fast forward to 2017 there's no doubt that it'll be an even higher statistic than this.

20/03/17 - Facebook and Twitter should do more to combat fake news, says GCHQ (56)

20/03/17 - Facebook and Twitter should do more to combat fake news, says GCHQ (56)

Paul Chichester, the director for operations of the government's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has stated the social networks like Twitter and Facebook should be doing more in the fight against the threat of fake news. As part of their own 'social responsibility,' the companies should be doing their best to stop misinformation rather than spread it further. This statement comes at a time when the protection of the integrity of Britain's electoral democratic system is the top priority of the NCSC subsequent to the hacking of the Democratic party in the US last year. While social networks are currently testing ways to flag news that's found to be fake, it's considered as not being enough by government officials who are urging they'll pose action from Brussels if a strong stance isn't adopted on the issue. Chichester does understand though, the viewpoint of the social media companies in feeling that they've been 'exploited' with the fake news threat and that collaboration between the them and government organisations like the NCSC are 100% necessary. The head also shared his thoughts on what was the 'biggest leak of confidential documents from the CIA' last week, describing how mass leaking of that nature is always a problem particularly when it aids cybercriminals in their antics.

This article shows the urgent action that governments want social media companies to take over this 'emerging threat' of fake news. Talks of the 'social responsibility' of a company are now being brought up to help spur this on but whether it'll actually do that much in making them take the quick action they need to is questionable. Collaboration between both the government and companies will also be something to keep an eye on in helping combat against the threat, seeing whether or not it'll be a successful partnership.

20/03/17 - Teach schoolchildren how to spot fake news, says OECD (55)

20/03/17 - Teach schoolchildren how to spot fake news, says OECD (55)

The Division Head and coordinator for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Andreas Schleicher has said that children should be taught how to identify fake news in schools. In his own words: 'distinguishing what is true from what is not true is a critical skill today.' This comes after the issue has been in the fore since the US 2016 presidential election, where fake news was in cases quite prevalent. He proposes that this teaching of how to identify news of this nature is something that should be implemented into all lessons rather than it involve the creation of a whole new subject. Not only this, but Schleicher has also expressed his concerns over the echochamber that social media is said to be responsible for creating. Instead of having our views challenged, rather what social media does is just reinforce the ones that we have. With this brings about the 'thinking that there is only one truth and there's only one way to live.' Things like the algorithms behind the networks help underpin this as they formulate avenues for people to find common ground with one another. With this 'global competencies' tests are being put forward for 15-year-olds to sit globally in conjunction with the OECD's current reading, maths and science assessments with the results obtained from them being deemed as important for governments around the world.

This article represents the level of impact that fake news is being perceived as having on the world. While measures to prevent its dissemination are being put in place, there's almost an acceptance that it's an issue that could be here to stay in the long run. The younger generations will now have to be taught the ways in which they can spot what exactly makes up a fake news story and how it differs from authentic ones. The impact the global competencies tests will have will also be quite noteworthy in seeing what they'll translate into in the next few years.

MEST3 Independent case study: New/Digital Media

MEST3 Independent case study: New/Digital Media

The basics

Your chosen industry:

Music

Your chosen case study:

The impact the growth of Spotify is having on the music industry

Audience

1)

New and digital media has meant that audiences can now gain access to music whether it's a single or an album 'in an instant.' Digital has taken over, allowing audiences to access music on a variety of devices with just a few taps being required unlike their physical counterpart.

2)

Rather than use things like a CD or record player like in the past, audiences now use their internet-connected devices to go on a streaming service like Spotify and listen to their collection of music there. This gives them the opportunity to access it on multiple devices that they own.

3)

With how the amount of people using streaming services like Spotify is constantly on the increase shown with h

4)

Services like Spotify have made it so that it's a lot easier not only to access, but to also gain new access to music that perhaps the listener wouldn't have paid attention to before. Things like curated playlists make way for things like this, creating a set of songs for the audience to listen to based on their previous listens. As well as this, people get to see what music is the most popular around the world easily whether it's based on genre or nation. 

5)

6)

Diversion: with the ease involved in accessing music as a result of the emergence of services like Spotify, a greater sense of this can be said to derived by audiences as they are able to listen to virtually whatever music they want to

Personal Relationships: N/A

Personal Identity: N/A

Surveillance:

7)

Distribution of active Spotify users in the United States as of April 2015, by age:

13 - 18 years: 21%

18 - 24 years: 26%

25 - 29 years: 15%

30 - 34 years: 11%

35 - 44 years: 14%

45 - 54 years: 9%

55 - 64 years: 4%

65 years and older: 2%

Institution

1)

In the music industry, new and digital media has had an impact on ownership and control in the sense that it brings about less need for an artist to be signed to a record label. While in the past artists would need to get signed to a label in order to succeed within an industry, services like Spotify (and also Apple Music) make it the case artists actually own their content and have autonomy in the way in which they handle business.

2)

3)

New and digital media can be said to have changed the way institutions/artists produce music

4)

5)

UGC

1)

User-generated content on Spotify could be said to be found with the playlists feature that it has. Users are able to create playlists which are a collection of different songs and make them public so that others can also listen to them. Users can search for them based on moods, events, activities etc.

2)

UGC can be said to have changed things for audiences since what we now see is audiences taking more of an 'active role' in curating and discovering new music. By being able to put together our own playlists and allow others to listen to them in what could be looked as one-to-many/many-to-many communication, audiences become more active in their position.

Social media 

1)

It tends to be the case that Spotify use social media to promote upcoming or newly released projects from artists. 

2)

With Kendrick Lamar's album dropping on the 14th of April, we can see that Spotify can tend to use its social media presence to help promote some of the products that become available on it. This helps in keeping customers informed on what's new in terms of music and as we can see below it also gives them a chance to address possible questions that they have regarding the releases.

3)

With this said, it appears that social media acts as a great opportunity for the industry as it assists in the promotion of projects by artists which are of course, gonna bring in revenue whether you're talking about through advertisements during songs or paid subscriptions.

Statistics

1)

• 'The top 1 per cent of artists the likes of Rihanna and Adele accounted for 77 per cent of recorded music income in 2013'

• 'Most digital music services have catalogues of more than 20m tracks are not listened to.'

• 'The music rights organisation PRS for Music reported this year that CD and DVD revenues fell by £8.7 million in 2009, but digital revenues grew by £12.8 million.'

• As of December 2014, 75% of Spotify's 60 million users worldwide (up 20 million in a month!) were using the free tier, with just 25% paying the subscription of £9.99 per month. Spotify's user base has doubled since 2013 but the proportion of users on the paid tier - 25% - looks to have stayed roughly the same

• As Spotify explains, the free tier that 75% of users are experiencing contains adverts, all of which advertisers have paid to place there. This revenue all goes into Spotify’s coffers, as do the subscription fees for the paid tier, and it pays 70% of the overall revenue they collect to rights holders – in other words, to the artists

• According to its figures, the amount of royalties that Spotify pays to artists doubled from 2013 to 2014, from half a billion to a cool billion US dollars.

• It’s not as simple as that though. As reported by The Trichordist’s blog (‘Artists For An Ethical and Sustainable Internet’), 80% of the revenue Spotify pays out comes from the 40% of streams made via the paid tier. In terms of collecting royalties for artists, the free tier is still very much the ‘gateway drug’ of the whole platform.

• It was reported by TechCrunch, however, back in 2009, that the major labels had received an 18% equity share in Spotify, and were receiving more favourable terms than indie labels. 

• Neilsen SoundScan’s global figures reveal that 70% of the music consumed in the first half of 2014 was streamed or downloaded – with streaming up a staggering 52% from the previous year

• With the news that 50 million songs 
• were streamed in January 2015 (double 
 
• the previous January’s), and that from 
• February 2015, the UK album chart (as 
 
• well as the singles chart) now factors 
 
• in streams, the business models of 
 
• platforms like Spotify, and indeed 
 
• YouTube, will be incredibly important – 
 
• and increasingly under scrutiny – as the 
• landscape changes permanently and 
 
• streaming becomes the norm. Whether 
 
• all artists and all labels – majors and 
 
• indies – get fairly recompensed is a 
 
• question that lingers.

2)

3)

Theories

1)

• "Pareto's Law" (Lin & Webster 2002) - Pareto's would no doubt be able to be applied to the case study since at some points we're presented with how it's only the top artists that end up getting listened to. Statistics such as how the top 1% of artists such as Rihanna and Adele accounted for 77% of recorded music income in 2013 and also how most digital services have catalogues of more than 20 million tracks that are not listened to 
• Two-step flow model - this could arguably be referred to since in linking with the theory above, we see how the power of opinion leaders can make it so that they remain the most popular artists regardless of the platform

Issues/debates

1)

• Ownership and control - this can be viewed as being relevant to the case study as when talking about new and digital media in the music industry, autonomy is an issue that comes up frequently in terms of the control that artists maintain over their content 
• Media technology and the digital revolution - this can be viewed as being relevant to case study as we are seeing how developments in new and digital media are affecting the music industry. Spotify is a streaming service available on internet-connected devices. 20 years back things like this simply weren't available so its presence has an impact in a wide range of ways

Wider examples and secondary texts

1)

As Media Magazine 53 pointed out, other services that reflect the developments in new and digital media within the music industry are Apple Music, Tidal and Pandora to name a few. Pandora is definitely something to have a look into is it's not an on-demand service like Spotify is but rather an 'internet radio.'

MEST3 Section A exam prep

MEST3 Section A exam prep

1)

The two trailers use the narrative technique of enigma to encourage the target audience to watch the films through the posing of questions by characters in them which generally go unanswered. This can be seen at the very start of Product One, where Jacob says "she has a right to know" and Bella asks "what?" Straight after this we catch wind of 'unexplained disappearances' going on in Seattle, this being the development of what we can understand to be a mystery within the narrative. Product Two doesn't differ from this at all, with questions asked by Oskar to Eli such as "are you a vampire?" and "will you be my girlfriend?" never end up getting directly answered at any point of the trailer. The lack of dialogue, particularly within this product is something that can be picked up on in helping add to enigma too, as it leaves audiences questioning events they saw. While Barthes is the main theorist that can be cited here for his concept of enigma codes, Todorov can also be looked at as someone whose theory applies, as we're left in a state of disequilibrium by the end of both trailers with no level of clarity or suggestion as to how the films will actually progress and end. This in turn encourages the target audience to watch them so they can see whether or not new equilibrium ends up being established or not in both of them.

2)

Media products that represent outsiders tend to be popular as they present us with characters that live in quite a drastically different way to us which piques our interest/curiosity. Instead of what's the case when we're presented with people that are familiar to audiences, watching media products with characters from outsider groups make us interested in certain aspects of their lifestyle. Gone Too Far can be said to display this particularly with the very Nigerian roots of the film being something that can undoubtedly be viewed as exotic (Alvarado) and foreign to (white) British audiences. This is showcased through things such as the traditional West African attire worn by Yemi’s mum and not least through the use of the Yoruba language by her and Ikudayisi. The more humorous (Alvarado) nature of Ikudayisi as he at least tries to fit in with western society is another example of how media products that represent outsiders can be quite popular, as it's quite interesting to see how they 'adapt' to the stipulations of modern society. In Product 1 we see this quite widely with both the vampires and werewolves appearing to be on the very fringes of society. Product 2 does with the same with audiences wondering how a vampire committing gruesome attacks on civilians could ever fully integrate into a community.

These media products representing outsiders may also be popular as they can tend to portray aspects of ourselves in them. It's often the case that audiences will be able to have a level of personal identification (Blumler and Katz) with an outsider character whether it have to do with race, demeanour or just general background. In Ill Manors for example, audiences might align with certain people in it due to shared aspects of character. Young people will do this especially since of course, the film dominantly portrays them. However this won't always be the case, and actually more middle-class adults might see a film like it as an avenue for slum/poverty tourism where they can too, achieve a sense of diversion (Blumler and Katz) from their everyday lives as explorers (Young and Rubicam). This diversion finds it itself being present in Product 1 too with its fantasy battles involving vampires and werewolves coming across as quite the adventure.

3)

Both official and unofficial websites contribute to a film's box office success to a degree as they can often provide people with content that they wouldn't have got their hands on without them. In maintaining synergy with some of the other products offered by the brand, the Ill Manors website was also home to the Tag London online campaign. Being a campaign in which people posted their anti-establishment sentiments with the hashtag #ILLMANORS, an example of user-generated content, it was evident that the website had some significance in the promotion of the film and so box office success. Other ones such as review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes and also IMDB play quite a contribution to box office success too as the ratings put up on their often be a big influence as to whether or not people watch the film, lower ratings of course being a deterrent from this.

However it must be recognised that the contribution these websites are having are now on rapid decrease, particularly when you see that most films are now incorporating social media links into them. The website for Product 1 and also Spectre did this, with the latter having things like an Instagram page helping promote the film showing clips from things like TV spots of it and also pictures of members of the cast as well. The same goes for the Twitter account which shows not only things like links to the soundtrack of the film and behind-the-scenes footage for it too. The fact that social media is being used this extensively shows that even the companies behind films recognise that websites are becoming more and more of a dying medium as time goes on. Pre-installed on people's phones and something predominantly used everyday, social networks networks are a perfect place for institutions to promote their products on to help box office figures. With this said I personally think that while official and unofficial websites do have a bearing on a film's box office success, social media has more of an impact on it.