1. iCloud enables bad habbits

By that I mean pirating, of course. The criticism is that iCloud is monetizing stolen content, and in some ways that’s a true statement. For an annual $25 fee, iTunes Match will find any of the music in your iTunes library that wasn’t purchased from the iTunes store and automatically replace it with a 256kpbs AAC file from the store. If you don’t make use of the service, then your music presumably goes towards the 5GB of free space users are allotted. Anything purchased from Apple does not count towards your 5GB, but for those with vast libraries of pirated music –  or music simply uploaded from a CD – that creates problems. Labels kind of took the bait on this one; Apple’s licensing deals only set them back $150 million. Compare that to the $500 million they invested on just SETTING UP the storage system for the expected demand from consumers and it’s almost laughable.

However, it’s been clear for some time that the landscape of music distribution and access needed to change. The old business models simply aren’t working as well as they did pre-Internet, and most labels never really caught up. They continue to spend millions on advertising and bonus checks, never once batting an eye towards their hardworking artists. In the search to find new avenues to sell music, music became less important than money. In a way, Apple is paving the way towards a new model, something that will ultimately need to be adopted lest labels pine to be driven into the ground. Why do you think labels agreed to a mere $150 million, or 40% of their bottom line? Apple is alleviating the problem; their subscription service costs just as much for an entire year as one new vinyl record.

2. Google vs. Amazon vs. iCloud

The bottom line for these services is a matter of preference, but the facts remain. iCloud offers the scan and match service to “upgrade” your music files, which takes a matter of minutes, and stores them across all your Apple devices automatically. Uploading your music to Amazon’s Cloud is done manually, although some of their perks are similar. Amazon’s service, in the end, is way more expensive. Compared to Apple’s $25 annual fee, Amazon charges for more storage (up to $200 a year for 20,000 songs). Seeing as Amazon launched their service without the consent of record labels, I hardly think any of that money is going towards artists. With the iCloud, at least labels get a cut of the subscription fee, albeit they probably won’t give a dime of it to their artists. With Google’s Music Beta, the problem is different. Their service is entirely free, but user friendliness is an afterthought. There’s no specific music player to play your uploaded content, no mobile app for the service, and no Google music store. Apple completely trumps Google in this facet, not to mention the fact that you can’t use Google or Amazon’s service with your Apple mobile devices or tablets.

3. Sharing

This is where Apple loses traction. As of right now, there isn’t a way to discover new music directly from the iCloud. Companies like MOG and Spotify can take a sigh of relief, since they both utilize amazing social integration into their platforms. However, Apple’s newest iOS has a Twitter integration, and details about its use are somewhat limited. According to a press release, the Twitter integration allows you to “sign in once and then tweet directly from all your Twitter-enabled apps, including Photos, Camera, Safari, YouTube and Maps with a single tap.” There’s no reason that iCloud shouldn’t have this feature, either. As of now, it’s only a matter of speculation, but Apple will be losing out on a major deal breaker if they don’t combine Twitter with the iCloud. There is, of course, Ping, but I honestly don’t know anybody who uses it. In an ideal situation, users would be able to tweet the names of songs they’re listening to without actually sharing the entire song. These innovations would surely get more users into the music marketplace.

—————————————————————————————————————

“If hardware is the brain, the software is their soul,” is the line Steve Jobs used to grasp the attention of his audience during his keynote at the WWDC. He’s made it clear that Apple’s vision is to remove the personal computer as the central hub of our digital lives. In the Apple ecosystem, the personal computer is now a counterpart to the iPhone, the iPad and to an extent the Apple TV. It’s just another device connected to the real hub-the cloud. The big problem, then, is copyright, and so far not a single major player in the Cloud industry has done anything to educate users on its importance in the file sharing crisis (and in Google’s and Amazon’s case, even secured licenses!) Without copyright, there is no music industry. Apple is far more interested in getting consumers to buy their products, the music is just a perk.

With the technology behind Chrome Experiments, programmers and directors can come together and create an interactive music video experience. Using open source technologies such as HTML5 and WebGL, artists are free to submit work they’ve done with JavaScript for a chance to be displayed on the website. The goal is to provide inspiration for anyone interested in experimenting with the web with the same ideals that built Google Chrome – that the Internet can become faster, more fun, and more open. The first project utilizing the platform for a music video was Arcade Fire’s “The Wilderness Downtown,” a downright amazing interactive video with Chris Milk’s directing efforts lending a hand to Google programmers. First, users type in their childhood address, then a custom-generated music video is created featuring images of their childhood home and neighborhood, all pulled from Google Maps and Street View. While Arcade Fire’s “We Used To Wait” plays, windows are choreographed to pop open at points determined in HTML5’s timecode, turning the viewing experience into something entirely personal and nostalgic.

Screenshot from "3 Dreams of Black" courtesy of Dexinger.com

Chris Milk recently finished a video for “Black,” a song from the new album “Rome” by Danger Mouse, Daniel Luppi, Norah Jones, and Jack White. Called “3 Dreams of Black,” the video moves between three different dreams, all with varying visuals and effects made with WebGL. As the song plays, the viewer literally steers himself through these dreams with the computer’s mouse, navigating from real footage to surreal graphics. The advent of the interactive music video, thanks largely to Google, is sure to attract more and more artists. Seeing as the programs to make the videos are free, it seems the only expense is time and putting together a team of talented graphic designers and programmers. However, users are encouraged to visit this website to dive deeper into the interface, where they can create their own 3D models and upload them to the web.

If you have Google Chrome (and you should), head here to take part in the experience. As technology moves forward, so too will our appetite for innovation. Right now, Google is leading the pack, but this method of production is sure to open doors for programmers and artists alike.

We also launched Music Beta by Google, a new service that lets you upload your personal music collection to the cloud for streaming to your computer and Android devices. With the new service, your music and playlists are automatically kept in sync, so if you create a new playlist on your phone, it’s instantly available on your computer or tablet. You can use a feature called Instant Mix to create a playlist of songs that go well together. You can even listen to music when you’re offline: we automatically store your most recently played music on your Android device and you can choose to make specific albums or playlists available when you’re not connected. The service is launching in beta today to U.S. users and is available by invitation. (via Google Blog)

 

Side news from Google — You can now download movies to your android phone.

There was a time, and some would still argue same, when playing with branding like this was a cardinal sin. “You don’t want to confuse the customers!” It was thought to dilute the message or worse.

Luckily today, most brands have finally realized that their consumers are smart, and are capable of ingesting, interpreting, understanding and identifying with what I call branding’s version of variations on a theme. In fact, by Google digging into culture,history, science (ie: life) and playing with its logo, they’ve actually demonstrated and enhanced the brand. Think about it. What do you do on Google? Search for stuff. If you’re looking for French Post-Impressionist painter, Paul Cezanne’s birthday (pictured) or other item, you can find it by typing it right into that little bar on Google.

Making a connection with culture and at the same time elevating your brand’s mission gives people something to talk about, take away and remember.

MailChimp, my preference in email marketing, has a lovable (at least to me) chimpanzee as their mascot of choice. While they don’t go as far as Google with their manipulation of the logo, they do have fun putting their monkey in different situations or styles that represent something that resonates with them as a company, and hopefully with their audience, too. Pictured is the one they did in tribute to A.A. Milne, the English author best known for Winnie-the-Pooh. By playing with their brand’s logo, they not only keep it fresh, but communicate the whimsy, the levity of the brand itself.

I encourage you to find out how you can use cultural references, whether historical, current or offbeat to better connect with your audience. BUT — yes, there’s a but — I implore you to know who you are and what your brand stands for first. The reason MailChimp and Google do this well is because they worked long and hard to both know what they wanted to portray as a brand, as well as, who the audience they wanted to reach were/are. Have fun, but have a reason, or you will in the end, confuse your customers and dilute your message.

What are the brands you see having fun with their image?

Filed under: Advertising, Advice, brand, google, marketing

As a marketer and advertiser, I must inform you about the joys of using advertising like Facebook Ads and Google’s AdWords. Unlike print media, TV or radio, Facebook Ads and AdWords give you the ability to directly target a specific audience. It is truly a marketers dream come true! No more do you have to wonder if your message is getting seen by the right people, or if anyone is even paying attention to you ads.

With Facebook and Google’s platforms easily accessible to advertisers and marketers, not only can you pinpoint the audience you are trying to reach, but you can also see how many people clicked through, joined your page, and (if you have your Google Analytics funnels set up properly) when a consumer purchases what you’re selling. I know what you’re thinking – it can’t be true! But it is. I can testify to you that on the ad campaigns I’ve worked on, I’ve seen up to a 400% increase in “fans” on Facebook in 24-hours. I’ve also seen sales increase by 25-30% in 24-hours. Now THAT’s results!

The best part is, you can monitor the results of your campaigns hourly. If you notice one ad picking up while the others are lacking, you can evaluate the differences, adjust the campaigns, and see virtually instant results.

I have noticed that you should wait until one 24-hour cycle is completed. As indicated by recent research, most Facebook users in the USA use the platform between 7pm EST-12pm EST. Therefore, if you change the ad during the day you may not see results until that night. There are also days where Facebook use peaks – so be on the lookout for events (think Olympics, VMAs, etc.) that promote using Facebook that might affect your results.

Sadly, I’m not getting paid by anyone to tell you the good news. I’m just the messenger. If you do decide to move forward with Facebook and/or Google advertising, I wish you the best of luck. I look forward to hearing about your endeavors and successes!

Best wishes,

Taylor Vick
Your Social Deviant

Filed under: Advertising, Advice, Facebook, google, marketing, social media, Social Networks

Bob Parsons is the owner with the provocative TV ads that deliberately can’t be shown during the Super Bowl. I guess scantily clad women help sell domain names. From the huge selling price, it must have worked.

I do have a few concerns other than the questionable company image. They play a huge part in the development of the Internet. They enable “regular” people to jump onto the Web and create whatever innovations strike them. They have a very easy setup and many people have benefited from their services. While I don’t care about Danica Patrick, I do care about the Web being able to grow with new websites and ideas. Their ease of registration and outstanding (at least for me) customer service is a true asset to the Internet.

If a new company purchases Go Daddy we all will have to hold our collective breath and hope they don’t go on a cost cutting, infrastructure dismantling raid. We all know that’s what companies do when they buy up someone else. Let’s hope it doesn’t end up with major website down times, outsourced and frustrating customer service, and a cumbersome registration process. Let’s keep in mind they have a lot of data and data is very valuable. What if someone like Google bought them? They love data and they have many piles of cash.

They might have built an image with bikinis but Go Daddy earned my trust with the actual product they sell. We’ve all heard the stories of stay at home moms who started a website and made a mint. Let’s hope if Go Daddy does sell, those stories will continue to flow. I’ll be watching this. Will you? Oh, and Danica’s not a bad racecar driver.

From the site:

How does this work?
You can now place calls to landline and mobile phones from within Gmail. Just dial any phone number and you’ll be connected. Learn more.

Rates
Calls to the U.S. and Canada are free in 2010. International calls are billed at our insanely low rates.

You can call Afghanistan for $.27 a minute or Zimbabwe for the premium price of $.46 a minute, and some rates are as low as $.02 a minute. Not bad.

Have you tried it yet? How does it compare to Skype?

Filed under: technology