Defining and Measuring Value in the Context of Web 2.0: an Artist Perspective of “Effective” Promotion for New Music Today

DEFINING AND MEASURING VALUE IN THE CONTEXT OF WEB 2.0: AN ARTIST PERSPECTIVE OF “EFFECTIVE” PROMOTION FOR NEW MUSIC TODAY.

By Jeremy W P Haigh MA Music Industry Management

Dissertation LTPP44N, January 2013 London Metropolitan Business School Word Count: 18,000

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank London Metropolitan Business School and the senior lecturers: Richard Salmon, Peter Dyson, Milan Todorovic and Gareth Thompson for their insight and guidance. This research would also not have been possible without the help of ACA Music and Radiomonitor.

Contents Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………..... 3 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Literature Review – Music Industry Overview ……………….……………………… 6 The Media: Background History and Theory …………………………………... 6 The Digital Revolution ……………………………………………………………. 8 Music Industry Recording Sector: “The Majors” ……………………………….. 9 Copyright Law in the Digital Age ………………………………………………… 10 Digital Developments in Consumption: Ownership & Access ………………... 12 Digital Developments in Marketing: Reaching for The Long Tail ……………. 13 Literature Review - Area of Business/Management Theory……………………… 14 Digital Marketing Strategy with Web 2.0 ……………………………………….. 14 Social Media Case Study of Lady Gaga ……………………………………….. 16 Social Media Framework of Measurement …………………………………….. 17 Social & Networking Value with Web 2.0 ………………………………………. 20 Consumer Research Today: Radio Is King …………………………………….. 21 Cultural Currency and The BBC ………………………………………………… 22 Conceptual Development ………………………………………………………………. 24 Research Methodology …………………………………………………………………. 27 Case Study ………………………….…………………………………………….. 28 Artist Questionnaire ………………………………………………………………. 29 Questionnaire Design ……………………………………………………. 30 Questionnaire Data: Processing, Collection & Analysis ……………… 34 Findings & Analysis ……………………………………………………………………… 35 A Radio Case Study of Sam and The Womp ………………………………….. 35 Artist Questionnaire: Marketing & Promoting New Music in the UK ………… 41 Multiple Promotional Methods …………………………………………... 44 Web 2.0 Platforms ……………………………………………………….. 47 Benchmarking Digital Currency ………………………………………… 49 Conclusions & Recommendations ……………………………………………………. 57 References ………………………………………………………………………………… 60 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………. 63 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………... 67

Abstract

This paper explores the history and theory of media communication, with the developments in technology leading to the digital revolution. In discussing the Internet as a promotion and marketing tool for new music today, the notion of Web 2.0 is highlighted in particular. This is explained in the context of digital currency, where value may be represented by time, attention, action and advocacy, through the networking effects of a global, digital economy. However, in order to define what value is and how it might be measured, this research identifies a set of key performance indicators for the music industry. Fundamentally, it not only distinguishes between different online and offline promotional methods, it also reveals specific Web 2.0 platforms used by the music community. By creating a set of benchmarks for these platforms through a combination of metrics, artists can better understand how results might be measured and quantified. Through a questionnaire survey, social media and online video was found to increase appreciation and awareness of an artist. This is contrasted directly with the dominance of national radio broadcasting as a major influencer and driver of record sales, using a case study approach.

Chapter 1: Introduction

New technologies and changing consumer behaviour has drastically reshaped the music industry. This technological advancement lies in the opportunity to speak directly with consumers through a range of Web 2.0 social media networks and distribution platforms. Consequently, the barrier between content and the medium through which this content is accessed has become increasingly blurred. Artists can, for example, use online services to distribute their music independently via mainstream music retailers, registering songs with collecting societies in order to receive royalties from sales, broadcasts and streaming services. Limitless potential now exists to market directly to fans/consumers through social networking platforms. Hence, de-institutionalized communication networks continue to reconfigure relationships through the Internet, which, in theory, levels the playing field: artists can be creators, producers and marketers.

Traditionally, the ability to reach “the masses” required access to gatekeepers, with whole divisions within major record companies focused on these tasks. However, Web 2.0 destabilises this mass media model, which, according to Küng is: ‘the distribution of an identical message to many recipients’ (Küng, 2008, p.96). Furthermore, Leonhard and Kusek (2005, p.38) consider that the fundamental change between the relationship of consumers and music is not the need to own a product (by being a passive consumer), but to freely access content as a user of large information networks. Hence, music is accessible now more than ever before, but this depth affects consumer’s perceptions of how music is valued. The ease with which digital music can be copied and shared online has undoubtedly shaped a new “digital economy,” which has challenged the content industries and the policies and laws that seek to protect them. This embedded digital culture may have arguably contributed to falling revenue streams offline for the recording industry, but has consequently created opportunities for independent artists to capitalise in other areas instead – or so it would seem.

The difficulty for independent artists, however, is to compete against the relatively small number of mainstream artists (often signed with major recording labels) who receive mass marketing through cross-channel promotion (e.g. radio, television, film, newspaper, internet etc). Additionally, the saturation of new music available online makes it increasingly difficult to stand out. Although the promise of Web 2.0 alludes to artist reaching niche or narrowcast audiences online, national radio’s broad appeal offline remains a key influencer of popular music taste today.

Thus, two main debates emerge from existing research, which form the underlying assumptions for this deductive research:

1. BBC Radio 1 & 2 is the dominant marketing channel for promoting new music to a mass audience, due to cultural and historic record industry relationships. This arguably drives mainstream chart activity, based on record sales/radio success, and vice versa.

2. Web 2.0 is an open, democratizing system, offering unlimited potential to increase audiences through the interconnectedness of social media. Success, however, is relative and hard to measure.

Social media is a somewhat recent mainstream phenomenon. As a result, little research has been conducted on how independent artists view and experience such rapid developments online, possibly owing to the ongoing music industry’s “digital piracy” campaign that has dominated headlines (and research) for the past ten years. However, Collins and Young (2010) have made an attempt at capturing artist perspectives (as opposed to music consumers) regarding the promise of Web 2.0. Hence, the overall aim of this research is to contribute further to the debate by exploring the use of Web 2.0 technology by artists as a promotional channel, in contrast to the more traditional institutions (the radio industry). This research acknowledges that there is a lack of evidence to support the notion that artists can be commercially successful without traditional radio promotion, despite the “promise” of Web 2.0. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to highlight the dominance of BBC Radio 1 through empirical evidence; and, in light of this, develop a greater understanding of why artists are continuing to focus their efforts online through an examination of digital currency.

The following chapters will allow readers to gain further insights into the phenomenon of music promotion. To explore this in detail, Chapter 2 will outline the current context of the music industry. Chapter 3 will explore Web 2.0 technology and the concept of digital currency through a digital marketing framework and communications model, accompanied with a case study example, supported by secondary research. This chapter will also look at previous studies that relate to Web 2.0 and radio broadcasting promotion for the music industry. Chapter 4 details the conceptual development, based on the literature reviewed in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 5 consists of the research methodology, which describes the research process and objectives. Chapter 6 presents the empirical findings and analysis and Chapter 7 draws the study to a conclusion.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 1 – Industry Sector Overview

Firstly, this chapter explores how the global media industry has developed over time, with the impact of technological advancement and the effects of being globally connected through mass media. The digital revolution is also considered from a record industry perspective, and how the challenge of adapting to a digital landscape has greatly tested the application of copyright law. Consequently, digital economics are considered and how changes in consumption have driven new business models (and commercial interests). The chapter concludes with an introduction to digital marketing and The Long Tail Theory.

THE MEDIA: BACKGROUND HISTORY & THEORY

According to Küng (2008), ‘technology gives, and technology takes away, but it seldom takes everything away’ (Küng, 2008, p.125). This statement is supported by the significant developments over the past one hundred years that have shaped the media industry. Over the course of the 20th century, the erosion of existing business models and market segments has been caused by the invention and development of: radio broadcasting, television, VCR, digitisation, satellite/cable transmission, compact cassette, personal computers, CD-Rom, Internet, television/video on demand, broadband, wireless telecommunications and fibre optics (Küng, 2008, p.125-127). Each new step forward increasingly undermines the technologies and existing practices that came before, as Küng highlights further:

• Live music industry  Radio Broadcasting; • Hollywood film industry and newspaper industry  Television; • Hollywood film industry and television industry  VCR; • Reference book industry  CD-Rom/PCs; • Music industry  Compact cassette, compact disk and Internet.

In most cases, these new technologies do not necessarily replace, but supplement. Hence, Küng (2008, p.125) argues that the media industry would not have developed and grown was it not for technological innovation.

Giddens (2001) offers further incite into the developments of the media industry. He refers to the role of mass media and how it influences and shapes modern society (Giddens, 2001, p.484-485). Likewise, he notes the development of new technologies has had a transformational effect on the media and mass communication (Giddens, 2001, p.452). According to Giddens, theorists such as Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan argue that: ’the

7 media influence society more in terms of how they communicate than in what they communicate’ (Giddens, 2001, p.485). Hence the expression by McLuhan: “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 1962, p.xxvi). These words are extremely relevant in the context of the technological advancement mentioned above; however, the emphasis is not necessarily on the apparent changes that new technologies bring. Instead, according to Federman (2004), McLuhan makes the point that it is the deeper and subtler changes that are important:

‘Look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced or extended by the new thing’ (Federman, 2004, p.2).

The expression “technological determinism” (Olivier, 2003, p.459) can also be used in the above context, with the idea that technology drives social structure and cultural values. This term can be explained by a poignant example: the ancient societies that used stone hieroglyphics. Civilizations’ inability to communicate at a distance severely impeded their growth (Innis, 1950; cited in Giddens, 2001, p.461). Hence, Innis (1950) points out that print media not only introduced literary culture through mass production techniques, it was also the first step towards ‘influencing the organisation of a society’ (Innis, 1950; cited in Giddens, 2001, p.461).

McLuhan’s “global village” (McLuhan, 1962, p.xxxvi) concept explains that electronic media can instantaneously reach a global mass audience of millions; audiences experience events together as they develop (Giddens, 2001, p.461). In this context, Jürgen Habermas raises an important point about the so-called “public sphere”. The central argument, as explained by Giddens, is focused on the culture industry and the way in which public opinion is formed through, ‘manipulation and control – as for example, in advertising’ (Giddens, 2001, p.462). Hence, it might be suggested that the medium of TV and Radio offers less opportunity to enter into a two-way debate, one where equals can come together through an open public discussion. Instead, Jean Baudrillard’s “Hyperreality Theory” suggests that mass media communicates their representation of the world, and, perhaps more worryingly, dictates what our world is actually like (Giddens, 2001, p.462).

Expanding on the concept of the “global village” further, according to Stief (2008), globalization is: ‘the process of increased interconnectedness among countries most notably in the areas of economics, politics, and culture’ (Stief, 2008). The main attributes of globalisation can therefore be defined as the global flow of: machinery, money, people, images and ideas (Kuipers, 2012). Thanks to this process, the organisation of cultural

8 goods by way of production, distribution and consumption occurs on a mass scale across the world (Burnett, 1996, p.12). However, the negative aspects of globalisation are largely attributed to cultural homogenization, or cultural/media imperialism (Klein, 2000, p.55). Thus, as different cultures blend and interact through this “global village”, America’s vision of identity and self-image, ‘a supposed “one-way” flow of culture and information’ (Burnett, 1996, p.12), is projected on mass through television exports, advertising and commercialised culture (Giddens, 2001, p.479). Klein (2000) suggests that this ‘logo-linked world’ (Klein, 2000, p.8) of global brands and multinational corporations in fact widens the economic divide and narrows cultural diversity. This suggests a more industrialised view of the effects of being globally connected, through the movement of capital and the increase in capitalistic cultures that overcome geographical and political borders (Negus, 1993, p.297).

The effects of deregulation and convergence in the telecoms and broadcast field are also considered to be important catalysts for the digital revolution, which ultimately shaped a new media communications sector (Küng, 2008, p.99). The balance comes in ensuring that large media companies, unlike public broadcasting, can be commercially successful and operate effectively in a global marketplace. Giddens (2001, p.484) also suggests that the benefit of this competition enables pluralism, which is inherently democratic. However, due to a concentration of only a few large media companies (in the USA particularly), critics also argue that businesses wield excessive power because they are essentially self-elected. To counteract this, the public broadcasting sector in some countries acts as an important force against the dominance of commercialised media organisations (Giddens, 2001, p.484). However, it might also be said that certain public broadcasters themselves share monopoly- like characteristics, for example: the apparent dominance of BBC Radio 1 in the UK.

THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION

The effect of both digitization and rapid expansion of interconnectedness through the Internet particularly, has provided new challenges and opportunities alike. Parkin (2009, p.22) identifies ten characteristics that describe the current and future environment of the web: fast, disruptive, global, social, virtual, mobile, ubiquitous, local, disintermediating and contextual. In the words of Parkin:

‘There is a delightful irony in the fact that a system intended to strengthen the military- industrial complex became the most massively democratising engine of global freedom since the printing press’ (Parkin, 2009, p.17).

Once different messages are digitized into a common format, they can be transferred and processed in a variety of different ways and through a number of converged channels. Therefore, according to Küng (2008, p.93), convergence sees the bringing together and fusing of content (media), computing (IT) and communications (telecoms and broadcast distribution). As well as the development of digitization and the Internet (www), Küng (2008, p.96-100) explains that the following factors also drive convergence:

 Moore’s Law of faster/cheaper computer power  Dramatic increases in bandwidth capacity  Standardisation of network architecture  Networked open electronic platforms  Matcalf’s Law and network externalities  Deregulation of national telecommunications  Globalisation of business

From a network perspective, Matcalfe’s Law reveals an important point about network effects: value is created by an increasing number of users who utilise a particular service or communication network (Küng, 2008, p.98-99). This in turn creates a bandwagon effect, which attracts more and more users. Google is an excellent example of this concept, where indirect systemic value is captured within its network. By offering free products and services to its customers (search, email, video, etc.), it can provide “eyeballs” for its revenue generating advertising platform; more products means more traffic (Pynnönen et al, 2011, p.54).

MUSIC INDUSTRY RECORDING SECTOR: “THE MAJORS”

Since the late 1990s, access to digital information via the Internet has prompted fundamental changes in the way that music is produced, distributed and consumed (Moltini and Ordanini, 2003, p.389-406). As suggested by Mintel Oxygen (2007), the effects of the rapidly developing digital age, coupled with changing consumer behaviour, has meant a dramatic decrease in recorded music revenue – an estimated 14% drop in sales between 2002 to 2007, as well as a drastic reshape of the music industry (Casadesus-Masanell et al, 2010, p.1247). Major recording companies, who have historically controlled the entire value chain through highly vertically integrated1 activities, have largely felt the effects of this shift.

1 To limit risk and uncertainty, vertical integration ensures access to exclusive content that drives the core business (backward integration) and an outlet with which to monetise the exchange between artist and fan (forward integration)(Küng, 2008, p.185).

Before this, technological limitations in the past, such as the complexity of recording, manufacturing and distributing music, were perceived by the content industries as a major controlling facet (Lessig, 2008, p.37). As a result, the major recording labels quickly rose to become global entities with far reaching scope, in terms of market penetration and capitol (Küng, 2008, p.74-5). This power, however, relied on two main elements: control of the value chain2 and control of global, physical distribution of products such as compact disks. In fact, following the introduction of the CD in the 1980s, the music industry enjoyed fifteen consecutive years of sales growth (Leyshon et al, 2005, p.177); hence, control of the value chain captured higher profits for the major record companies through record sales.

However, roughly twenty-five years later, the proliferation of large-scale web portals and interconnected networked economies gives rise to the view that access to content will replace ownership (Leonhard and Kusek, 2005). Indeed, evidence suggests that this is certainly the case for a generation of youth that have adopted file-sharing habits (Leonhard and Kusek, 2005, p.100). In addition, discussions related to the mass production of music, on a large industrialised scale, seeks to explore the notion that the music industry produces very little originality (Adorno, 1991 cited by Negus, 1999, p.21). It is therefore suggested that users, seeking highly individual tastes and interests, have sought to find other ways of sourcing content (Casadesus-Masanell and Hervas-Drane, 2010, p.1251). For example, the ability for users to customise their consumption of music using vast peer-to-peer (P2P) networks is a contentious issue: it not only undermines copyright laws (through the illegal copying and distribution of content), but it also destabilises the mass media model, which, according to Küng is: ‘the distribution of an identical message to many recipients’ (Küng, 2008, p.96). This model traditionally works on economy of scale. Whereby, after initial high cost investment and production, the mass distribution of a product significantly reduces cost with large volumes (Küng, 2008, p.8-9).

As the demand for content and access has driven technological advancement (Casadesus- Masanell and Hervas-Drane, 2010, p.1249), the industry has argued that it has also proliferated the spread of illegal, copyrighted works via the Internet (Leyshon et al, 2005, p.179). Contributions, in light of this, identify the growth of P2P networks (e.g. Napster) as a major cause for the unprecedented decline in record sales (Liebowitz (2006); Rob and

2 A value chain consists of a sequence of ‘actors’, where suppliers provide the input (i.e. artists) and the company adds value to these inputs (e.g. recording and producing an album), before passing them onto the next actor in the chain (Porter, 1985; cited in Graham et al, 2004, p.1087-89).

Waldfogel (2006); Obelholzer-Gee and Strumpf (2007); Zentner (2006); cited in Casadesus-Masanell and Hervas-Drane, 2010, p.1248). This challenge has already, and still continues to impact on the future of the music industry (Leyshon et al, 2005; IFPI, 2012).

At the heart of the copyright industries lies the need to maintain a balance between protecting intellectual property (rewarding creators for their endeavours so that they have an incentive to create), and the interests of the wider society. Value is perceived from the point of view of economic investment, particularly in the UK. Hence, it is closely related to commercial utility as the law provides an opportunity for authors to profit from said works: it is the author’s right to copy (Davis, 2005 p.105). However, the nature of file sharing raises pertinent questions about copyright law and how it seeks to protect intellectual property, and those who benefit from its commercial utility in the recording sector.

The copyright industry has traditionally monetized the exchange between creator and consumer through licenses and the subsequent payment of royalties to the copyright owners through collecting societies3. This revenue stream, however, has been severely undermined in the digital economy (Meisel and Sullivan, 2002, p.17). The way in which content can be easily copied and distributed to users, via the Internet, causes difficulties for copyright owners and the organisations (i.e. publishers and recording companies) that seek to profit from the sale of units and collection of royalties. Thus, copyright infringement is a significant topic when put into context with P2P networks, not to mention the countless studies which have found a negative impact on sales as a result of online sharing (see Liebowitz, 2006; Rob and Waldfogel, 2006; Obelholzer-Gee and Strumpf, 2007; Zentner, 2006; cited in Casadesus-Masanell and Hervas-Drane, 2010, p.1248). For example, between 1999 and 2002, annual global music sales declined by roughly $2 Billion. Illegal file sharing via P2P was attributed largely to this fall, although other aspects were also considered as likely factors, including: counterfeit CD production, changing consumer behaviours and a weakened economy (Strauss, 2003; cited in Vaccaro and Cohn (2004, p.46). Conversely, during this period, the groups topping Napster’s “download chart” were the same groups receiving significant record sales offline (Alderman, 2001, p.50). The record industry, however, has relentlessly engaged in a decade long battle with new technologies and those that use them (see A&M Records, Inc vs. Napster (2001) and MGM Studios vs. Grokster (2005) for two landmark cases).

3 Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS), Performing Rights Society (PRS) and Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) for the UK.

More recently, the UK Internet Service Providers (ISPs) challenged the legality of the proposed Digital Economy Act (2011), largely on the grounds of technical issues (cost of implementing monitoring, cite blocking, notification and appeal system) and also privacy rights (Ashton, 2011, p.4). This challenge was unsuccessful, which is of significant importance at a time when the free-flow of information within the new digital economy of large technology and communication businesses (e.g. Google, Youtube, Yahoo, AOL) incites major debate for the future of intellectual property (AIM, 2011).

DIGITAL DEVELOPMENTS IN CONSUMPTION: OWNERSHIP & ACCESS

In 2007, the British Music Industry (BMI) and MCPS-PRS finally came to an agreement with YouTube over licensing agreements. Two years later, Universal Music launched their music video service, Vevo, in collaboration with Google. These are prime examples of ongoing negotiations that have centred on copyright law and rights management. As Preston and Rogers highlight, “the outcome [in the case of YouTube] is illustrative of an ongoing trend where the major music companies have sued a media network, settled, licensed and then gained equity in the service” (Preston and Rogers, 2011, p.15). Five years later, according to IFPI (2012), digital music revenues grew by 8% globally in 2011 (to an estimated US$5.2 billion), compared to 5% in 2010. This accounts for approximately 32% of record industry revenue globally in 2011. “Ownership” models make up the vast majority of digital revenue, notably iTunes and 7Digital. However, an increasing number of “access” models are gaining traction through licenses and equity, in many cases, obtained from the major labels. Deezer is the most recent subscription service to receive an £80 million investment from Warner Music’s owner, Access Industries (Pakinkis, 2012). Consumers are streaming licensed content on Spotify, Rhapsody and Deezer. Fans are also engaging with artists on social networks like Facebook and Twitter as well as sharing and discovering music on social networks through SoundCloud, Last FM, YouTube, Facebook and blogs (Music Metric, 2012). Major brand tie-ups and bundling services in 2011 include Spotify with Facebook and Virgin Media, as well as Deezer with Orange. More recently, cloud services have been launched by a host of major brands4. These examples are all significant steps forward and the increase in digital revenue demonstrates this. Consequently, though, the developments have not only reinforced the major record companies role within the music industry – and this has not been a painless process by any means, given the recent acquisition of EMI (leaving only three major recording companies) - but it has also strengthened the position of intermediaries like Google. This point can be highlighted

4 Including: iTunes Match, Google Music (Google Play), Amazon Cloud and Sony Cloud.

13 further by the recent announcement that Google will “punish” sites proven to infringe copyright by down ranking their search results (Ingham, 2012).

DIGITAL DEVELOPMENTS IN MARKETING: REACHING FOR THE LONG TAIL

Parkin proclaims that: ‘the late 20th-century marketing model is broken’ (Parkin, 2009, p.39). Hence, there is a significant difference between traditional advertising approaches5, as compared with the new digital marketing environment on the Internet. Digital marketing is less about utilising this new Internet medium as a hybrid digital advertising platform, as Parkin notes, by ‘manipulating consumers’ perceptions of their needs’ (Parkin, 2009, p.40). Instead, the emphasis is placed on understanding how consumers interact online and how they have become empowered through the use of this technology (Parkin, 2009, p.39).

Digital marketing allows the creation of value by stimulating demand through the Internet; value, however, can also be represented by time, attention and advocacy. Fundamentally, it places the user at centre stage, with highly customizable products and services tailored to their needs (Stokes, 2008, p.21-22). Anderson (2006) explains the phenomenon of ‘narrowly targeted goods and services’ (Anderson, 2006, p52) in his best-selling book, The Long Tail. He suggests that consumers are increasingly turning away from mass produced, mainstream products (forming the head of the demand curve) in favour of more specialist, niche products (found at the tail) that represent infinite choice (Anderson, 2006, p.52). This effectively starts to shrink the mass market found in the head of the curve, which is caused by three forces, according to Anderson (2006, p.54-55): democratising the tools of production, democratising distribution and connecting supply and demand.

In the case of music and the above three forces, creators can record and produce professional content at relatively low cost. This content is easily distributed through digital streaming platforms like YouTube and SoundCloud, or even via online services that supply digital retailers like iTunes, Spotify and Google Play (ReverbNation, 2012). Through access to international distribution networks like these, previously only available to the major labels, and specialised outsourcing of promotion and marketing, artists are able to compete in a newly evolving marketplace with the help of Web 2.0. The final element uses collective intelligence in the form of search, blogs, word-of-mouth and recommendation, among others, to filter results and connect supply with demand (Anderson, 2006, p.57).

5 This entailed bombarding consumers with branded, mass-marketed advertising, in the hope that the message would be ultimately absorbed and acted on. The notion of reach and frequency was closely related with hard sell practices that developed right up until the nineties (Parkin, 2009, p.40).

To summarise: it has been suggested that the media influences society more in terms of how it communicates (the medium), driving social structures and cultural values through technological determinism. Hence, electronic media’s global reach allows the dominant culture industries (particularly from the USA and UK) to broadcast their representation of the world through a form of manipulation and control, which influences mass public opinion. Based on this, the developments in telecoms and broadcasting have also been explored, looking at the commercial and public broadcast sectors and how a balance between both must be maintained, although this is not always the case (which will be re-examined later). The digital revolution has been largely driven by convergence, which sees the fusing of content, computing and communication industries; Metcalf’s Law is particularly noteworthy, as a force driving convergence, because it introduces the notion of value based on an increasing number of users that utilise a particular service (the band wagon effect). Changes in the recording sector have also been highlighted due to the disruption to traditional business models and changing consumer habits. This change has been put into the context of copyright law, with two opposing points raised about large information sharing services: (1) they destabilize the mass media model (2) their users are influenced by the mass media model. Alongside these points, it has been noted that developments in ownership and access models have developed gradually based on a rights management system for the Internet. This has seen a dramatic increase in legal online services, which can be used to distribute, promote and share copyrighted works. Consequently, this not only benefits the organisations that seek to profit commercially, it also benefits a large community of independent creators, where demand exists. However, crucially, value is not only created on the Internet by increasing revenue (after all, global record sales are falling annually), it can also be represented by time, attention and advocacy. This forms the basis of the conceptual development and will be reconsidered throughout the coming chapters.

Chapter 3: Literature Review 2 – Area of Business/Management Theory

This chapter firstly defines what Web 2.0 is and how it has affected digital marketing on the Internet by looking at the RAIDER communication model. It also explores a case study example of social media strategy in action. Secondly, a digital marketing framework is introduced in order to build an understanding of different KPIs and how they might be used to define a success criterion and evaluate the outcome of online promotion. Thirdly, previous studies into Web 2.0 and the radio and record industry are explored, largely informing the conceptual development of this research paper.

DIGITAL MARKETING STATEGY WITH WEB 2.0

Constantinides and Fountain (2007, p.233) identify five main categories that are intrinsic to Web 2.0 applications: social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc), blogs, content communities (YouTube, Wikipedia, Flickr, Digg, etc), forums and content aggregators6. Consequently, new business ideas built around these elements have attracted significant interest in the form of spectacular acquisitions and mergers (e.g. Google and YouTube). The transformational effect on business strategy and marketing is evident, as businesses attempt to adapt to the changing landscape of Web 2.0 in their marketing planning (Constantinides and Fountain, 2007, p.231). The challenge, therefore, is in understanding the change from existing communication models that evolved from a linear progression: attention, interest, desire and action (AIDA). Instead, the additional facets of “research” and “referral” in Web 2.0 creates a much more sophisticated model (RAIDAR), which opens up multiple permutations. For example, a friend might “Like” or “Share” a link on Facebook or YouTube. This referral grabs another friend’s attention, initiating the response to research the brand/product further using Google. By this point, interest in said brand/product might incite a desire of sorts, after several cycles of research/attention/interest. Stimulated through a variety of approaches on Google search (search marketing, search engine optimisation (SEO) and pay-per-click (PPC) advertising), clicking on a PPC advert may even constitute an action of some sort, which ultimately translates into a sale (Parkin, 2009, p.52). What does this mean for marketers? As Stokes remarks, ‘everything can be measured: from behaviours, to actions and action paths, to results’ (Stokes, 2008, p.22).

Therefore, the role of digital marketing strategists is to measure return on investment (ROI), either through increased marketshare, sales or brand recognition (Drury, 2008, p.275). Hence, marketers are increasingly under pressure to determine the effectiveness of social media in a commercial context. Based on the general consensus that social media (in general) has become a mainstream marketing channel, Dzamic (2012) suggests that evaluation methods and frameworks should be discussed in the context of value. This notion is explored from the viewpoint that the difficulty is in how to measure value, not in what to measure. There are, for example, metrics that already measure actions of engagement (“Like buttons”) and brand affinity (“Share buttons”) as mentioned above. Instead, the key question is: how does one define value in the context of social media and Web 2.0? After all, it is a relative term that might be interpreted differently by each marketer (Dzamic, 2012, p.199). In this respect, Stokes (2008, p.24) offers an alternative variation on

6 RSS feeds, APIs and XML data that allow content to be customised and retrieved from a website.

The Four P’s (product, price, placement and promotion), suggesting that a fifth “P” (people) is needed as part of the analysis of value proposition. Stokes (2008) also suggests that, ‘digital marketing objectives should be aligned with the brands greater strategic objectives’ (Stokes, 2008, p.30). For example, if an organization’s objectives was branding and participation, it might use social media tactics to stimulate engagement and collaboration in the brand story.

SOCIAL MEDIA CASE STUDY OF LADY GAGA

A Harvard Business School report examines Lady Gaga’s rise to fame through the use of social media. According to Anderson et al (2011), by the end of 2010, Gaga had sold an estimated fifty one million singles and fifteen million albums worldwide. This level of success took Madonna a decade, and Gaga less than two years. Her success is acknowledged by many in the industry as being largely attributable to the Internet and social media, all be it on the back of the major marketing clout of Universal Music’s Interscope Records. It was a first for a pop star: new music sales driven online from a network of hard-core fans.

Elberse and Christensen (2011a and 2011b) explore the artist’s career from interviews with Gaga’s business and creative team, Troy Carter and Vincent Herbert. According to Carter, initially, having released Just Dance on April 8, 2008 in the US, gaining momentum proved difficult due to the “dance” feel of the track; mainstream radio rejected it. Consequently, a rap-music release plan was developed as a means of building a grass roots fanbase. This was also due to the difficulty of gaining additional resources from the major label’s marketing division. Although the majors have historically spent significant portions of their funds developing and marketing new artists, there is increasingly more pressure on labels to concentrate their resources on established acts, due to falling revenues. As the IFPI chairman and chief executive, John Kennedy, proclaimed, “You probably won’t see the level of earnings of Madonna or U2 again” (Music Week, 2010). However, this didn’t stop Team Gaga.

Gaga performed relentlessly for months on end, seven days a week and sometimes at two or three shows per night in different clubs. The aim was to develop distinctive communities around her from the ground up: the dance community, club-going community, gay community, fashion community and art community. Alongside this strategy, social media provided limitless possibility at a time when, according to Carter, ‘others still regarded digital distribution as a source of cannibalisation’ (Elberse and Christensen, 2011a, p.7). Ahead of the Just Dance release, Gaga started using Twitter and Facebook in March 2008 and

17 released a series of two-minute videos on YouTube (capturing and sharing intimate moments), in order to engage fans with fresh visuals and to create a sense of connection between her and her growing fan base. This connection with others and the ability to engage in a seemingly two-way dialogue with fans is fundamental in Web 2.0. Not only have these digital marketing tactics paid dividends, they have seemingly created a core fanbase of followers who feel that they are a part of something - making them more likely to share with others. Hence, the elements of “search” and “referral” in digital marketing, stemming from the ability for people to share and connect others with new brands and products, is clearly a demonstration of the power of Web 2.0. Although the actual statistics available are limited, in regards to online activity, the results were reflected eventually offline: two months after its release, Just Dance entered the Billboard Hot Dance Airplay and Club Play charts. Another two months after this, it entered the Billboard Hot 100. According to Elberse and Christensen (2011a, p.7), in the second-longest rise in history, Just Dance took a further five months but eventually made it to number one. By this time the second single, Poker Face, released on September 23, 2008, had already climbed the billboard charts, through a ‘combination of live performances, online tactics […], and more traditional music-marketing techniques.’ Elberse and Christensen (2011a, p.7).

SOCIAL MEDIA FRAMEWORK OF MEASUREMENT

The above case study highlights the need to set objectives within a social media strategy, which relies on establishing a clear set of key performance indicators (or KPIs). These KPIs might be as simple as adding “Likes” on an artist’s page, with a target of N fans over six months. Or, in the case of Gaga, allowing photographs and camera-phone videos of shows to be taken by fans as a means of encouraging the dissemination of the Gaga brand online - through engagement and collaboration in the brand story (Anderson et al, 2011, p.4). Thus, as highlighted above through Stokes (2008, p.30), and the re-evaluation of the four P’s, this, arguably, is a prime example of the fifth “P” (people) in action. On the other hand, measuring the commercial effects of these tactics and “setting industry standards” is a contentious issue, especially with the abundance of analytical data that is now available through social networking insights and Google analytics (as compared with five years ago). Dzamic (2012) argues that marketers have all the metrics they need; it is the inadequate tracking through multi-platform journeys that remains the problem. Although a valid point, the IAB framework (Figure 1) is brought to light none-the-less. Pentin (2010, p.4) highlights the use of the IAB Framework for accountability, standardisation, interpretation and optimisation, although the common justification is benchmarking/efficacy.

Figure 1: IAB Framework

Source: Pentin (2010) on behalf of the IAB Social Media Council.

Figure 1 outlines the three parameters (IAB) required for defining KPIs. Initially, the first stage (intent) requires that a set of objectives distinguish the criteria that will be used to evaluate success; this in turn dictates which KPIs are most pertinent. For example, from the list of intentions below, as defined by Pentin (2010, p.8), an emerging artist might wish to generate buzz, advocacy or word-of-mouth principally, or:

• Build brand awareness • Generate brand engagement • Shift consumer perceptions • Influence key opinion formers • Generate leads or build prospect base • Stimulate dialogue or relationship with prospects • Encourage participation for social event • Manage brand reputation • Divert a PR crisis • Engender customer loyalty • Uncover customer or product insights • Enhance customer service

These KPIs can then be collated into more meaningful groups (see Figure 2) and the importance placed onto the “4 A’s” will depend on the original intent. According to Pentin, ‘activity designed to generate buzz and WOM (word of mouth) might focus more on awareness, appreciation and advocacy’ (Pentin, 2010 p.11). In contrast, encouraging participation for a specific social event (e.g. buying tickets) may be regarded as an important action metric.

Figure 2: The 4 A’s

Source: Pentin (2010) on behalf of the IAB Social Media Council.

Dzamic (2012, p.204) makes the point that it is still difficult to ascertain the overlap between Facebook fans and Twitter followers, for example, and whether certain users are more likely to share/re-tweet content than others. Even more fundamentally, these users may not even represent customers in the real world. For marketers, the challenge is undoubtedly benchmarking success/value and demonstrating that social media not only increases brand (or artist) awareness, but it also acts as an offline sales driver as well (as it did, arguably, in the case of Lady Gaga). Hence, the final stage of the IAB Framework is about comparative benchmarking. This involves looking at how one platform compares to another (whether they are social platforms or other marketing channels), based on similar objectives. The problem, however, as Dzamic (2012, p.203) highlights, is that each brand must define its own metrics in the first place – defying the very purpose of a common framework – in order to measure success.

SOCIAL & NETWORKING VALUE WITH WEB 2.0

In 2007, Collins and Young (2010) interviewed forty-two Australian musicians (from internationally acclaimed to unsigned) through a qualitative approach. Questions were raised about the resources and expertise needed to help build relationships through Web 2.0 (or Music 2.0 as it is referred to). The study found that musicians were encouraged by the potential of distributing and promoting their music online. However, the challenge is undoubtedly making money from these activities, when the value of recorded music continues to fall. The research, however, must be considered in context with the developing nature of Web 2.0 platforms. At this time (2007), Facebook had only just outperformed the former US social networking leader, Myspace, in terms of monthly unique visitors; Twitter had only just been launched; YouTube was two years old. There was no inbuilt mechanism for purchasing music through these platforms; the study therefore suggests that musicians derived value from the social and networking benefits rather than economic returns through sales. Collins and Young (2010) conclude that musicians, in addition to their creative activities, must be managers, lawyers and (perhaps most importantly for the benefit of this research) marketers as well.

More recently, McLean et al (2010) examine the impact of digital culture on the music industry. Through a critical social theory approach (CST), the research makes use of official and unofficial online resources, media reports and an individual discussion with an independent DIY artist7. A series of vignettes explore how structures and processes affect communication between artists and fans, as well as through the media and record industry. This examination of Web 2.0 focuses on the usage, behaviours and power relations between these communities. The critical nature of this research largely draws from the work of Habermas (1984, 1987) (also discussed in THE MEDIA: BACKGROUND HISTORY & THEORY), which, in this case, serves as a theoretical lens to focus on ‘the oppositions, conflicts and contradictions in contemporary society.’ (Myers and Avison, 2002, p.7). Thus, this type of critical epistemology is centered on the idea of emancipation and a commitment to ‘freeing individuals from power relations,’ (Kaplan et al, 2004, p.196-7). It seems an appropriate methodology, given that critical research arguably aims to transform social reality, according to Niehaves and Stahl (2006), compared with positivist and interpretivist paradigms. Despite technological empowerment, however, the authors maintain that mass media and broadcasting remain dominant, due to social, cultural and political forces.

7 DIY artistry is, ‘a well known ethic based on self-reliance and exceeding one’s own expectations of what can be achieved with the tools at-hand.’ (Bennett and Peterson, 2004, p.2).

Hence, the construction of “music consumers” and the commoditisation of music continue to challenge independent DIY artistry.

CONSUMER RESEARCH TODAY: RADIO IS KING

Despite the digital developments in consumption (as explored on page 12), consumer research in 2011 undertaken by NPD Group and NARM (National Association of Recording Merchandisers) makes a very clear distinction:

Radio consistently emerged as the most important way of discovering new music, as of August 2011, closely followed by “word-of-mouth” through friends, co-workers and family members. (NPD Group, 2011).

These results were based on 3,771 completed online surveys, which identified five music consumer segments: committed, convert, comfortable, casual and content. Although a detailed methodological approach is not available on the companies website, both organisations are considered highly reputable.

Figure 3 is taken from the top ten findings by NPD Group (2011), published via Digital Music News (2011). The group of “committed” consumers is the youngest group8. They are the most engaged9 and value ownership, accounting for 46% of per-capita spending on music; and they use a variety of sources to discover new music (NPD Group, 2011).

Overall, the NPD Group (2011) study found that discovery via online radio and web videos was increasingly important for the most active music fans. Television (in aggregate) also emerged with 49% of active consumers citing its influence. However, AM/FM radio and word-of-mouth discovery was the most common influence by far with 60% for radio across all musically active consumers. This study is further supported by research from Jacobs Media Tech (2011)10 and Neilsen (2012)11, whose findings also correlate with the dominance of radio as the primary source of new music discovery in 2011/2012.

8 20% aged thirteen to seventeen and 42% aged eighteen to thirty-five), with a mean age of thirty-two. 9 Representing 10% of all consumers who listened to/purchased music within 3 months prior to the research. 10 Via an online study of 20,783 participants with a base age of 12+ years in the USA and Canada. 11 Via an online study of 3,000 participants with a base age of 18+ years in the USA.

Figure 3.

Source: NPD Group (2011); published via Digital Music News (2011).

CULTURAL CURRENCY AND THE BBC

Twelve years ago, Hendy (2000) noted that the BBC’s internal production practices and external cultural dimensions had blurred the boundary between specialist and mainstream audiences, particularly in respect of Radio 1 and 2. The BBC, according to the author, acted as a prime mover, “leading” rather than merely “reflecting” popular music tastes before a mass audience. From the mid 90s, Radio 1 was increasingly programming unproven pre/new releases12. By the late 90s, specialist producers and presenters began having direct input at playlist meetings: it was necessary to balance innovation (in the form of new music) and populism, by way of maintaining large audiences big enough to influence the record market. Airplay and sales charts are therefore identified in this study as measurements of record success, influencing record selection by radio. In other words, ‘exposure on radio is a crucial prerequisite of sales success’. (Hendy, 2000, p.745). Although a complete methodological approach is not explained in detail, the study suggests

12 The emergence of Britpop and its cross over into mainstream is in part owed to Radio 1’s ability to mould/identify shifts in popular culture, according to Hendy (2000).

23 that an analysis of airplay charts and sales charts, side-by-side, reveals, ‘something of the chronology of the interplay between record buying and music selection on different radio stations […] since airplay and record sales are mutually reinforcing each other.’ (Hendy, 2000, p.750).

Percival (2011) explores how BBC Radio 1 and 2 continue to exert power and influence over the music industry. This study was conducted through a series of interviews between 2004 and 2006 with record company pluggers and music radio programmers. Percival shows that radio continues to influence the promotional strategies of the record industry. The author concludes that music radio: ‘exists simultaneously as a mediator, as a cultural product, and as a cultural producer’. (Percival, 2011, p.471).

To summarise: digital marketing with Web 2.0 has opened up the traditional communication model with the additional elements of research and referral. This has created a challenging online landscape for digital marketers, with multiple permutations to track and measure. It is therefore suggested that evaluation methods should be discussed in terms of value. However, defining what value is and how it might be measured requires a closer look at the marketing objectives. The Gaga case study provides an example of digital marketing strategy in practice, along with an evaluation of the social media tactics used to stimulate engagement and collaboration. This demonstrates the importance of defining a set of KPIs in order to establish how results might be measured and benchmarked. The IAB Framework is introduced so that it may be referred to within the conceptual development and also used to inform the questionnaire design and its analysis. In terms of existing research, the following key points can be noted:

1. Musicians have been encouraged by the promise of Web 2.0, however, they derive most value from the social and networking benefits (Collins and Young, 2010).

2. Although musicians have been empowered through Web 2.0, mass media and broadcasting remains dominant, due to social, cultural and political forces (McLean et al, 2010).

3. Despite the growing number of Web 2.0 platforms, consumer research still points to the importance of traditional AM/FM radio as the most influential source for new music discovery (NPD Group, 2011).

4. BBC Radio 1 & 2 are dominant promotional channels for the recording industry, leading rather than reflecting popular music taste, which ultimately drives music sales (Hendy, 2000 and Percival, 2011).

Chapter 4: Conceptual Development

In a changing world of technology and digital economics, the one consistent theme has been the record industry’s reluctance to embrace the Internet. It is unavoidable that through the rapid growth of file sharing behaviour, we now see an embedded global culture that is used to limitless access to content (Vaccaro and Cohn, 2004, p.46). In the last decade or so, copyright law’s wide application has been tested greatly, continuing to challenge the way rights holders preserve the status quo, whilst responding to the increase in demand for new digital services. Despite the press headlines and affirmations of declining traditional revenue streams, it has been argued that ongoing legal intervention has strengthened the major record industry’s position, by legitimizing a rights management system through copyright extensions for the Internet (Preston and Rogers, 2011). Although the Internet has certainly helped to reduce the barriers between artist and fan through Web 2.0, there is a sense that the conglomerates in media, IT and telecoms/broadcast industries are increasingly converging through alliances and joint partnerships, thus rebuilding those barriers. In the words of Sony Music’s president and CEO, Edgar Berger:

‘The technology infrastructure is being put in place in a way that we have never seen before and that is one largest reason why we feel positive about digital music going into 2012’ (IFPI, 2012).

Hence, from one traditional gatekeeper to another type of intermediary, the unabated role of the “middleman” reaches new meaning in the digital age. Aggregators, like iTunes, have fundamentally only increased their narrowcast products and services once their offerings encompassed a broad repertoire from (mainstream) major labels. Despite the unravelling of the “old models” and the contrasting nature of the “new”, reach and frequency prevails across a global village of commercialised, popular culture. Not only this, but success is not guaranteed by merely making content available online; new music must be discovered in the first place and something has to drive this process, whether it’s from the Head or further down the Long Tail (Anderson, 2006, p.148). So, what does this mean for those independent artists who do not have the luxury of mass marketing through traditional channels like radio and TV broadcasting, or through joint partnerships with Virgin Media,

Orange or Google? Do the answers lie on the Internet, despite the growing presence of commercial interests and digital economics?

Web 2.0 alludes to musicians creating, distributing and making money without the need for major record companies. Thus, Web 2.0 is associated with two major shifts: (1) consumers accessing increasingly more on demand digital music; (2) creators engaging directly with audiences through alternative communication channels, therefore bypassing traditional middlemen – i.e. the major labels (Collins and Young, 2010). The Gaga case study points to the importance of combining digital marketing strategy with traditional forms of promotion to ultimately drive sales, however it does not clearly identify social media (and Web 2.0) as an influential new marketing channel for the music industry alone. Consumer research also highlights this reality through the dominance of traditional radio broadcasting (NPD Group, 2011). Hence, the myth of Web 2.0 empowerment is at the heart of this debate, as well as the problem of how results can be measured in context.

Secondary research highlighted throughout the literature review focuses on two important issues, both in isolation of one another: (1) the social, cultural and economic effects of broadcast radio on sales; (2) the social and networking effects of Web 2.0 on digital currency. Ergo, primary research in this study seeks to draw a correlation between actions and outcomes: radio stimulates direct actions, in the form of sales, and Web 2.0 stimulates indirect systemic value, through a combination of research, attention, interest, desire, action and referral (RAIDAR).

Consequently, the studies by Hendy (2000) and Percival (2011) provide an invaluable look at the background and context behind the BBC’s position as an influencer – the ability to reach the masses via mainstream (and specialist) programming. In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon, it will be necessary to conduct primary research that will demonstrate the value of radio promotion as a sales driver. Fundamentally, unlike the Gaga case study (which is skewed due to the major label involvement and cross channel promotion), an artist needs to be identified without previous commercial success (through record sales), historic BBC radio support, or the backing of a major label.

In contrast, the research by Collins and Young (2010) and McLean et al (2010) could have benefited from a wider set of disciplines to help frame the subject. Unlike the record and broadcast industry, whose success criteria are seemingly based on economies of scale, the field of marketing provides an opportunity to define and evaluate “success” in the context of value. In this respect, marketing theory can help explore the deeper question of how value

26 might be measured and benchmarked against other similar channels. According to the marketing literature reviewed above, value in Web 2.0 platforms is not necessarily dictated by financial imperatives (or commercial interests). Instead, the ability to connect with others and share music online allows artists to build and influence a fan base, which may increase awareness, appreciation, action and advocacy. These four factors (The 4 A’s) will therefore need to be measured through primary research, which will help ascertain how artists themselves might define and evaluate success, through the use of particular Web 2.0 social media platforms.

The IAB Framework is critical to this research in order to explore the notion of digital currency and to establish a set of benchmarks specifically for the music sector. The outcome of this research will be beneficial to independent artists, as it will provide a frame of reference for identifying KPIs and setting clear objectives (within a social media strategy). Through a range of common metrics, artists will be required to evaluate their intentions and quantify the outcomes. This will assist in demystifying the myths of Web 2.0 empowerment and provide the industry with a snapshot of independent artist promotion through empirical quantitative research. It also subjects the criticisms of Dzamic (2012) to further scrutiny, who suggests that comparative evaluation frameworks are meaningless if it is impossible to track the commercial effects between different platforms and agree upon a definition of “value” in the first instance. In this regard, artists might not even be aware of the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of their intentions in the context of Web 2.0, or whether certain platforms actually make a measurable difference by driving commercial results. This research will therefore identify if there is a need to educate artists further or whether they do not have any other choice due to the difficulties and costs of obtaining exposure to a mass audience.

Therefore, the research questions ask:

How do artists measure “effective” promotion in the context of Web 2.0; is Web 2.0 less effective than broadcasting for new music promotion?

The following objectives will contribute in answering the research questions by identifying:

1. Is national radio broadcasting a dominant marketing and promotional channel for new music?

2. (a) Which methods of promotion and marketing do artists regard as the most important? (b) What value does an artist place on the chosen method?

3. (a) Which key Web 2.0 platforms are used for promoting and marketing new music online? (b) What value does an artist place on the chosen online platform?

4. How is digital currency comparable against other similar forms of online promotion, platform by platform?

Chapter 5: Research Methodology

The research philosophy for this study will be based primarily on a positivist epistemology, through the collection and analysis of quantitative data by way of a questionnaire survey. This approach relies on facts and observations; it is less about understanding the mindset of individuals, as with the interpretive model (Veal, 2006, p.37). Previous studies cited above have largely conducted research through open discussions and interviews between artists and industry professionals. Although this has been useful in drawing out common themes, there is a lack of quantitative evidence in this research that actually attempts to measure particular actions and outcomes when it comes to promotional strategies online and offline. Consequently, the justification for an alternative methodological approach is largely informed through the discipline of marketing and a need to apply a specific evaluation framework to this research - as a means of gaining a deeper understanding into the phenomenon of artist promotion.

A quantitative methodology will be initially supported by an explanatory case study, which provides an opportunity to test the application of a given theory (in this case: Hendy, 2000) in a current real-life context (Veal, 2006, p.109-110). This illustrative research draws on a number of information sources, including: Music Week, BBC Radio 1, Radiomonitor and The Official Charts Company. According to Veal (2006, p.111), the flexibility in data collection within a case study approach allows for an adaptive strategy throughout the research process. In this respect, data can converge in a triangulating fashion through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Hence, Veal highlights that, ‘quantitative research is often based on initial qualitative work.’ (Veal, 2006, p.40). Although a single case study may not necessarily be generalised, or regarded as typical, it can assist in addressing the same research questions with a multi-method approach. It is also intended to complement any limitations of using a quantitative questionnaire method, as Veal (2006, p.107-108) outlines, providing a means to crosscheck and validate the empirical information collected.

Case Study

Sam and The Womp débuted at number one in the official singles charts, selling 107,461 units between the 19th and 25th August 2012 (Music Week, 2012a). Ahead of the release on the 20th August 2012, “Bom Bom” quickly rose up the UK airplays charts and received heavy rotation through an A-Listing at BBC Radio 1. Thirteen weeks prior to this, the London based brass infused 8-piece were seemingly unknown and independently signed, with little in the way of industry buzz and attention. Fundamentally, through initial spotplays with specialist dance presenters at Radio 1, the track seemingly “crossed-over” to the daytime playlist after a period of eight weeks.

In order to answer the research objective (whether national broadcasting is a dominant marketing and promotional channel for new music), airplay data will be compiled manually by tracking each BBC Radio 1 show that broadcasted the track, “Bom Bom,” from the 8th June 2012 (week one) to the 28th September 2012 (week eighteen), through the BBC Radio 1 website programme schedule. The advantage of utilising the BBC’s website is that each airplay can be referenced with a permalink to the individual show, providing detailed evidence of the play and thus ensuring accurate and reliable listings are captured. Third party airplay monitoring companies often receive slightly higher play counts in their data, as it is harder to distinguish full plays of the track against instances where a short sample has been used behind talking or as part of a link/teaser (Field, 2012). The objective is to establish the time frame over which “Bom Bom” received promotion from Radio 1 and increased exposure to audiences through ascending the playlists: C, B and A.

Ten weeks worth of chart data will then be compiled from Music Week. This data is published weekly (online and offline) through Music Week’s collaboration with Nielson Music Monitoring (UK radio airplay and UK Music TV airplay) and The Official Charts Company (OCC singles charts); thus, the source of this information is widely regarded as reliable and trustworthy by the music industry. Two additional charts compiled by Music Week will also be included to increase the scope of this research: the commercial pop charts (from DJ feedback and record stores), and Spotify’s streaming chart, which will be particularly useful in gauging online activity. The objective is to note any correlations between Radio 1 plays/playlistings and the official singles chart position for sales of the single (as well as other auxiliary charts online and offline).

Finally, airplay data from all UK radio and music TV stations will be sourced from Radiomonitor, in order to validate the data compiled through the BBC’s website. An email was sent to Simon Field on the 3rd October 2012 requesting any available Sam And The

Womp airplay data; the representative from Radiomonitor supplied two spreadsheets (see Appendix 1 and 2). It is hoped that this will provide further incite into the regional and national stations programming practices, as a result of playlist scheduling of “Bom Bom”. Hence, the objective is to highlight the dominance of Radio 1 as a leader of popular music taste, particularly among other stations across the UK.

It will be necessary to compile the data into five separate Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and formulate the results based on two differing units of measurement: song plays and chart positions. The common metric will be time, represented in weeks (Sunday to Saturday), which will have to account for the weekly official singles chart updates (Sundays), BBC Radio 1 playlisting announcements (Wednesdays) and Music Week’s publication (Thursdays). This will enable the results to be analysed across all three sources, week by week. Hence, Veal describes this method as a time series analysis, whereby: ‘explanations are developed on the basis of observing change over time’ (Veal, 2006, p.113). Not only this, but the analysis must seek to highlight specific patterns that match with Hendy (2000), through a combination of explanation building, theory and data (Veal, 2006, p.113). The processed data tables will be presented in graph form, in order to illustrate any patterns by visual means, with supporting commentary that relates directly to the data.

Artist Questionnaire

The questionnaire will be aimed at a database of 1,773 artists. This sample has been collected by a music management and booking agency between 2009 and 2012, which regularly receives submissions from prospective artists and artist representatives. Owed to the open music policy of the organization, as well as its international presence, the database includes artists from many different backgrounds and experience levels. It is therefore broadly representative of a population of artists who are seeking to develop their professional careers within the UK music industry – increasing the validity of the information collected. It is also a rare opportunity to have access to such a sizeable database, which will help to reduce sources of bias introduced by self-selection and non-response (Veal, 2006, p.287).

Using a self-completed questionnaire method to conduct a survey allows comprehensive behavioral patterns to be obtained from the respondents. The information can therefore be divided into three groups, as Veal (2006, p.250) highlights: characteristics, activities and attitudes. The benefit of this method lies in the simplicity of data collection and recording (Veal, 2006, p.233). In order to answer the research objectives, it is necessary to quantify the results in numeric terms and analyse this data by way of statistical testing. Additionally,

30 four optional open-ended questions will be included within the questionnaire, in order to allow for qualitative elaboration. However, this approach is often difficult to acquire high response rates. It also requires a recoding system to identify common words and phrases, so that responses might be grouped into numerical categories for quantitative analysis (Veal, 2006, p.40). By reducing the data down through a coding system of variables, informed by the IAB Framework (the 4 A’s), it will allow an opportunity to contrast the responses from the pre-coded answers to test for consistency - in a similar way that a dummy question might test for accuracy (Veal, 2006, p.271-273). This raw data might also uncover additional insights that would not have otherwise been drawn out from pre-coded answers; it may also highlight that the respondents had not previously thought in detail about the information requested by the questionnaire.

Finally, the questionnaire needs to include a section that gathers inputted statistics from the respondents (e.g. number of fans, shares, tweets, etc). In order to build a benchmark from this data to satisfy the research objective (how digital currency is comparable against other similar forms of promotion, online and offline), each statistic will need to be supplied. Respondents may not have access to this information, therefore non-response in this section may be high, undoubtedly affecting the validity of this data. It is also important to note that any data collected must be considered in context, meaning that it cannot necessarily be generalized; it is a snap shot in time of a particular group, which is susceptible to change. The nature of the phenomenon being studied (and the developing landscape of Web 2.0 technology) inevitably impacts on the reliability of the findings, should similar research be conducted in the future. Not only this, but the dependency on a respondent to provide accurate information is subject to their ability to recall (or obtain) the information without exaggeration (Veal, 2006, p.271). Consequently, in the event that this questionnaire was re-sent to the same database in six months time, it is quite likely that the responses would be different.

Questionnaire Design

Initially, a pilot questionnaire was sent to five artists in November 2012. This provided important feedback concerning the formatting, wording and questionnaire length. Consequently, a number of changes were implemented, which will be outlined throughout the rationale and design considerations for each question below. See Appendix 3 for the final questionnaire.

Question 1 identifies the type of respondent (artist or artist representative). Initial feedback from the pilot suggested that the wording was confusing for artist representatives. Consequently, answering “artist representative” provides a secondary page explaining that the questions are worded primarily for artists and should be interpreted as if answering on the artist’s behalf. It also specifies that the representative should only refer to one single artist and not generalise the responses.

Section One builds a picture of the respondents’ characteristics.

Questions 2-5 create a distinction between different artists, through genre, location and primary musical occupation. Allowing for quick and easy responses, pre-coded answers have been reduced to the bare minimum. For example, any artists who are based outside of the UK would simply select “abroad”, hence speeding up responses. Likewise, artists are presented with fifteen broad options for musical genres. However, due to the many sub- genre classifications, artists are asked whether they describe their music as being niche or mainstream. A “hard to say” option is also available. The respondent’s genre and music type can then be cross-tabulated in SPSS (explained later) with other variables in order to build a more comprehensive picture of the sample.

Questions 6-10 are designed to capture further details about the respondents and their professional experience. Question 6 looks at the experience of respondents based on their involvement with professional third parties. Respondents may choose more than one party, so percentages may add up to more than 100%. Questions 7-10 are designed to capture the experience of an artist through their employment status and income stream, as well as the length of time and amount of earnings that have been made through their music. The initial pilot feedback suggested that questions regarding employment status and income should be optional, due to their personal nature. It was also highlighted that a pre-coded range should be used, rather than asking respondents for exact figures.

Section Two explores the respondents experience based on releases, airplay and charts.

Questions 11-12 identify the respondents who have released music digitally and/or physically in the last six months in the UK. This will be relevant when contrasting the income streams of artists, as well as radio airplay. These questions are designed to be quick to answer, because they are required (not optional). It is important to understand how active the sample has been within the UK music scene; releases are a good indication,

32 because there is certain amount of planning and investment needed to produce, package and distribute material (as well as promote it) – whether it’s online or offline.

Questions 13-14 measure traditional promotional activities in the last six months by asking whether respondents have received national airplay on BBC Radio 1, 2 1xtra or 6Music in the UK. Additionally, regional airplay is included (AM/FM or Digital radio stations in the UK), as it is more likely that a greater number of artists have received some coverage.

Question 15 asks respondents whether they have ranked in any of the UK official charts. Respondents may choose more than one chart, but it is expected for these results to be low. The question is, however, a pre-curser to the next section, where actions and outcomes of any given activity must be considered in greater detail.

Section Three identifies which method of promotion is the most important for new music.

Question 16 focuses on eight different methods of promotion and marketing for new music. The wording ensures that only the “most important” method, rather than the most effective or influential form of promotion, may be given. Based on the findings by NPD Group (2011) in Figure 1, national radio/TV is expected to have a high rating. This question therefore tests whether respondents are in touch with consumers and how music is being discovered.

Question 17 asks the respondent to explain in their own words why they chose the method above. The pilot feedback suggested that some explanation was needed in order to justify the choice. This will require a re-coding system, so that responses may be cross-checked for validity.

Question 18 refers to the eight promotional methods from question 16. Respondents evaluate and identify the ideal outcome of their chosen method, in order to build a set of “important” KPIs across different promotional channels (online and offline). The four options relate to appreciation (increases a fanbase), action (drives sales), awareness (builds awareness) and advocacy (influences new music discovery), adapted from the IAB Framework. To reduce the possibility of random clicking, an additional option has also been included for respondents who do not know the answer.

Section Four identifies the most important Web 2.0 platform and why.

Question 19 requires a respondent to select the most important Web 2.0 platform for promoting and marketing new music online, from a choice of 17 pre-coded. It is expected that a majority of respondents will select either Facebook or YouTube, based on the number of worldwide subscribers. The question is worded carefully, so that a clear distinction is made between these promotional platforms and other distribution platforms (like iTunes). This will be used as the main independent variable for much of the analysis in SPSS.

Question 20 is an open-ended question, asking the respondent to explain in their own words why they chose the platform above. Similar to question 17, this will require a recoding system, so that responses may be crosschecked for validity.

Question 21 consists of attitude statements that require a respondent to strongly disagree, disagree, agree or strongly agree with each statement. There is also an option of choosing “I Don’t Know,” again to increase validity. This question has two functions: (1) to ascertain how each platform is used; (2) to identify how each method may be measured, based on a set of KPIs adapted from the IAB Framework. The strongly agree and agree statements for both will be re-coded into one group, each with a simple “Yes” statement, so that they may be used as a nominal variable for cross-tabulation. This will also ensure that the sample is comprised of the most effective/successful platforms, based on respondents’ agreement and definition of value.

Section Five creates a set of benchmarks for a range of Web 2.0 platforms

Question 22 captures a wide range of metrics relating to The 4 A’s from the IAB Framework. There are twenty metrics in total, each requiring actual, quantifiable values. This needs to be as accurate as possible, so respondents are given the option to finish at any time instead of rushing through and guessing. These statistics will provide a benchmark of “effective” promotion across multiple Web 2.0 platforms, based on choice of platform, why it has been chosen and a definition of success (in the context of digital currency). Although responses may be a lot lower for this final section, it is hoped that there will be sufficient data to compare the means across all of the most important online platforms.

Question 23 is an open-ended optional question, asking the respondent to leave a final comment about the questionnaire and any issues it has raised. This may be useful in

34 drawing out additional thoughts about digital currency that would not have been possible from a pre-coded question.

Questionnaire Data: Processing, Collection & Analysis

The questionnaire sample will be analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Although much of the analysis will be descriptive in nature, simply specifying counts and frequencies, the software package will help explain the relationships behind platform choice and the value that it generates through varying outcomes. Explanatory research procedures such as cross-tabulation (crosstabs) and comparing means will therefore assist in understanding causality: why certain platforms are used compared with others. Crosstabs can utilize nominal data to examine the relationships between two or more variables based on frequencies. Means may be used with scale data to compare the means of two or more variables (Veal, 2006, p.307). Consequently, the questionnaire has been designed to collect a combination of both types of data. It is important to note that the research is largely intended to create a set of benchmarks, as there are no current figures within this subject field that utilises similar metrics. Therefore, no comparisons can be made.

The questionnaire will be administered by email13, based on the database of artists having provided and verified their email contact address. This automatically minimizes the potential of email bounces due to incorrect contact details, although some addresses will invariably have changed over time. To counter the likelihood of non-response, which is often associated with this research instrument (Veal, 2006, p.244), the emails will be sent via an email marketing platform associated with the organization, with which the database belongs, that allows the tracking of: delivered/undelivered emails, opened/not open, opened but not clicked. Initially, an email will be sent to the entire database of artists (see Appendix 4), including 1,773 people. Reminder emails will be sent, over the course of ten days, to those who have not opened/clicked any emails. This will ensure two weekends are given to complete the questionnaire. No incentives will be offered, thus increasing the validity of the data collected and guaranteeing a quality response. As the database already includes demographic and profile information (e.g. artist geographical location, genre(s) of music, signed/unsigned status, etc.), it may be possible to weigh the sample to correct for sources of bias caused by non-response and self-selection (Veal, 2006, p.287). However, this will not make a significant difference if the response is low (under 100). The database encompasses artists from a range of countries and backgrounds, along with varying

13 This will include a link to the questionnaire itself, which will be hosted by Google Drive.

35 experience and success. Hence, these responses will be representative of a population of artists who utilise Web 2.0 platforms for the promotion and marketing of their music. The anticipated response rate is +10% (over 170).

The data will be presented in table and chart form (wherever possible), due to the nature of cross-tabulation with multiple responses. It is not always possible to create a coherent graph due to the amount of data. The supporting commentary will relate directly to the data, although some larger data tables may be presented within the Appendix rather than in the analysis section itself.

Chapter 6: Findings & Analysis

A RADIO CASE STUDY OF SAM AND THE WOMP

This case study will answer the first research objective:

1. Is national radio broadcasting a dominant marketing and promotional channel for new music?

Figure 4 represents each individual BBC Radio 1 play of the track, “Bom Bom,” with the different colours signifying the shows/presenters that played it over the course of eighteen weeks (see Appendix 5 for further detail). “Bom Bom” first received its Radio 1 début on the 5th May 2012 by Rob Da Bank on a specialist late night/early morning show. One month later, the track began receiving further coverage, again from specialist dance anthem shows14. Initially, weeks one (1) to seven (7) featured six spotplays15 in total. There was also an important spotplay in week four (4) on a daytime mainstream show16. By week eight (8), having received two further spotplays17, the track was added to the C-List on the 18th July 2012. Week nine (9) represents a significant increase in plays, owed to the track moving to the B-List on the 25th July 2012. Consequently, as well as being played on the specialist dance anthems and Radio 1xtra shows, it was played six (6) times during daytime programming. In week ten (10), a further increase in plays can be noted, again due to the track moving to A-List rotation at the start of the week (1st August 2012). By week eleven, “Bom Bom” received further coverage from a wide selection of mainstream programmes, remaining on the A-List for another week. At this point, the track appears to have reached a

14 Played by Greg James, Danny Howard and Nick Grimshaw. 15 Where tracks are played on a “one-off” basis only. 16 Played on Friday 29th June 2012 by Fearne Cotton. 17 Played by Fearne Cotton and Chris Moyles’ breakfast show.

36 ceiling in the number of plays. In week thirteen (13), the addition of one further play can be attributed to the release of the single on the 20th August (that week) and its consequent addition to the chart show18. By week sixteen (16), the track’s removal from all playlists at Radio 1 noticeably coincides with a decrease in plays, although it does continue to receive spotplays over the following three weeks from a variety of specialist and mainstream daytime shows19.

Figure 4.

BBC Radio 1 Plays of "Bom Bom" by Sam And The Womp over Time 30

10 Total Play Count

Weeks Played (Calculated Sunday to Saturday)

Source: Compiled from Appendix 6.

Figure 5 represents chart data compiled from Music Week over the course of ten weeks. The “chart placement number” along the Y-Axis has been reversed, in order to represent that the position of “1” is the highest value (i.e. receiving the most airplay/sales). The “weeks” along the X-Axis also correspond with the time frame (in weeks) in Figure 4, in order to compare and contrast both graphs together. The first important point to note is that “Bom Bom” didn’t appear in the UK airplay chart’s top sixty until week nine (9), suggesting a relationship between the increase in plays from Radio 1 (due to the track’s B-Listing) and

18 Played by Reggie Yates. 19 Including the chart show, dance anthems and the request show.

37 the overall increase in UK airplay. One week later, the rise in UK airplay further highlights this connection between Radio 1 and overall airplay charts, as it is added to the A-List at Radio 1 in Week ten (10). This sees a new entry in the commercial pop charts at number thirteen. Week eleven (11) has an increase to number twenty-three in the airplay charts, with a high new entry in the Music TV airplay charts and a significant jump in commercial pop charts. As the high rotation continues at Radio 1 in week twelve (12), UK airplay continues to rise, as does the Music TV charts. The commercial pop charts drop one place, which signifies the beginning of a gradual decent overall. Significantly, by week thirteen (13) and the release of the single, “Bom Bom” goes straight to number one in the OCC singles chart, with further increases in UK airplay and a dramatic increase in Music TV airplay. Week fourteen (14) represents the peak of airplay, with the Music TV airplay position increasing by two places and Radio 1 continuing heavy rotation. However, the OCC singles chart ranking dropped one place to number two. Week fifteen (15) had further drops, with the airplay dipping slightly in line with the OCC singles and a steeper fall from the commercial pop charts. Music TV airplay remained consistent. With the removal of “Bom Bom” from Radio 1’s A-List, a sharper fall can be noted in week sixteen (16) from sales and airplay in general. Finally, week seventeen (17) and eighteen (18) continue this trend with falling sales and airplay dropping off the scale altogether. Interestingly, in contrast to the traditional medium of radio and TV, the track’s new entry into Spotify’s number two position in week sixteen (16) offers a tentative incite into the seemingly delayed reaction of online music consumption/access. In fact, the dramatic increase in interaction on YouTube (Appendix 7) and Last FM (Appendix 8) from the point that Radio 1 playlisted “Bom Bom” demonstrates that traditional media (in the form of radio and TV promotion) drove online activity and not the other way around. Thus, the sustained period of high rotation on Radio 1 through weeks eleven (11) to fourteen (14) has, arguably, driven a range of charts, which ultimately impacted on sales offline and interaction online (later on in the timeline). With the subsequent removal of “Bom Bom” from the playlists at Radio 1, possibly owed in part to the first signs of declining single sales in week fifteen (15), all other channels began to decrease their offerings of the track.

Figure 5.

Chart Data of "Bom Bom" by Sam And The Womp over Time Radio Airplay Commercial Pop Charts Music TV Airplay OCC Singles Charts OCC Spotify Charts

Chart Placement Number 51

61 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 Week 16 Week 17 Week 18 Weeks Charted (Calculated Saturday to Sunday)

Source: Compiled from Appendix 6.

Figure 6 was compiled in line with the time frame from Figure 4 and 5, highlighting the breakdown of UK plays that make up the radio airplay charts (excluding Radio 1 plays). Although slight variances can be observed between Figure 5 and Figure 6, the overall trend does correlate (as does Music TV in Appendix 9). Initially, over the course of weeks one (1) to eight (8), “Bom Bom” received little additional radio support from stations other than Radio 1, with the notable exception of two spotplays20. Week nine (9), in Figure 6, represents the first dramatic increase in plays, with notable coverage from Capital and Kiss. Fundamentally though, Capital had not played the track before week nine (9), having added it to their C-List a week after Radio 1 - who by this time had increased its rotation through the B-List. Week ten (10) demonstrates an identical trend, where further plays increased in line with Radio 1 (Figure 4) and the overall UK airplay charts (Figure 5). Similarly, Capital’s increase in rotation was due to a B-Listing, again one week behind Radio 1. Kiss also playlisted the track for the first time. Week eleven (11) sees Capital again increase plays significantly through A-List rotation (a week behind Radio 1) and other regional stations,

20 XFM London/Manchester on the 10th June 2012 in week two (2) and one from Juice 107.2 in week three (3).

39 dramatically improving coverage across the board. Weeks twelve (12) through fifteen (15) closely resemble the overall airplay charts in Figure 5, peaking in week fourteen (14), and decreasing in week seventeen (17). Arguably, the steady increase in plays across regional stations built as a result of heavy rotation at Radio 1, where it became saturated between weeks eleven (11) and fifteen (15). In contrast, Capital reached saturation from weeks thirteen (13) to fifteen (15), three weeks behind Radio 1 and only at the point in which “Bom Bom” was released. Despite the added support from a greater number of regional stations over time, the official singles chart demonstrates that this was not sufficient to influence sales to the same degree as Radio 1. This can also be explained through Radio 1’s sheer reach: 21% of the UK population above the age of fifteen listens to Radio 1, according to Rajar (2012) as of September 2012. This is a significant audience in comparison to the Capital network of nine stations reaching 13%, Kiss UK with 8% and XFM UK at 2% of a total UK population.

Figure 6.

Regional Plays of "Bom Bom" by Sam And The Womp over Time

Regional Plays (144 Stations) Capital Plays (9 Stations) Kiss Plays (3 Stations) 2500

2000

1500

1000 Play Count

500

0 Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Kiss Plays (3 Stations) 6 56 76 84 95 105 100 117 85 46 Capital Plays (9 Stations) 36 205 337 374 528 535 516 389 143 96 Regional Plays (144 Stations) 1 29 86 235 511 904 1270 1273 1217 1021 779

Weeks Played (Calculated Sunday to Saturday)

Source: Compiled from Appendix 1.

To conclude, this case study acknowledges Hendy’s (2000) findings, providing further evidence to support the notion that national radio promotion (Radio 1) is a dominant force, distinguished by its ‘internal production practices and external cultural dimensions’ (Hendy, 2000, p.745). Whereby, according to Hendy, the playlisting and scheduling of new music through daytime and specialist shows is increasingly blurred through ‘a process of cross- fertilization between the two categories of taste’ (Hendy, 2000, p.745). Not only this, but the audience reach is significant and this appears to have a large influence over the record buying market. In other words, broadcasting drives sales.

ARTIST QUESTIONNAIRE: MARKETING & PROMOTING NEW MUSIC IN THE UK

101 valid responses were received in total (see Appendix 17 for raw data).

Questions 1-5: Out of the total sample, 88.1% respondents were artists and 11.9% artist representatives. Primary musical occupation was split: 53.3% were performers and 46.5% were songwriters. A majority of respondents (65.3%) were based in the UK, with 34.7% abroad. Figure 7 below represents the genres of music within the sample, which has been cross-tabulated with music type. From this graph, it can be noted that mainstream rock dominates the sample (36.6% overall) – although many respondents were uncertain of whether they fell into a niche or mainstream music type. Mainstream pop is also well represented (14.9% overall), followed by mainstream hiphop and rap (10.9%) and mainstream electronic (7.9% in total). All other genres make up 29.9% of the overall sample.

Figure 7.

Question 6: Out of ninety-five respondents who answered, 55.8% had not worked with a third-party in the last six months within the UK. However, twenty-two respondents

42 acknowledged working with a music producer, fifteen with an independent label and/or distributor, fourteen with management, thirteen with a publisher and ten with a booking agent. The remaining third-parties received lower responses, possibly owing to the costs of working with radio pluggers, PR companies and music lawyers, although this is speculative. Only four people selected Major label and/or distribution. Figure 8 below outlines these responses, which have also been tabulated by music type. From the small sample size, it is interesting to note that mainstream respondents have worked with a greater number of UK third-parties within the last six months than those of niche genres – with the exception of booking agents.

Figure 8.

Questions 7-10: From a total of ninety-nine respondents, 41.4% are currently employed full time, 20.2% are self-employed, 17.2% are part-time, 8.9% are students, 6.1% are not employed for pay, 1% is freelance and the remaining 5.1% selected the “other” category. In terms of musical activities specifically, Figure 9 below represents the main income stream by type that respondents receive overall; these are based on the full sample. Interestingly, live/ticketed events are the main income stream for 35.6% of the respondents. 27.7% of

43 respondents do not have a main income stream at all from musical activities. Digital recordings, physical recordings, royalty payments and the “other” category represent 6.9% each. The remaining 6% are made up of merchandise, private investment and TV/Film syncs.

Figure 9.

By incorporating the additional responses from percentage of income earned through musical activities, and also the length of time respondents have been making money from music, cross-tabulation reveals further incite into the different income streams outlined above (see Appendix 10 and 11). Out of a total of eighty-nine respondents21, forty-nine people have made money out of music for more than three years and roughly half of these respondents cite live/ticketed shows as their main income overall. Digital recordings are the next main income type within this group with six respondents, as well as the “other” category22. Although the numbers are low across the other income types, it would seem that this group of respondents have a more diversified income stream, which is largely

21 Those who did not wish to disclose their earnings were removed. 22 From this response, it might be suggested that a relatively high number of respondents earn music revenue from other sources that were not pre-coded within the questionnaire, despite a range of categories being included: sponsorship, endorsements, competitions, arts funding, ad-supported online services and ringtones.

44 represented by those respondents who earn between 1-19% of their income from music. It is also interesting to note that none of these respondents earn an income from online subscription services. The next group of respondents has been making money out of music for between two and three years, but represents the least diverse in terms of income type. Once again, live/ticketed events is the main source of income for four out of the seven total respondents and physical record sales are next with two respondents. Lastly, one respondent cited royalty payments. The final group has been making money out of music for less than a year and, similar to the previous group, features live/ticketed events as the main income stream with three respondents out of ten. Physical sales are again the second main income stream with two out of ten respondents and the remaining income types cited by one respondent each23.

Questions 11-15: It was found that 61.4% of the total sample has released music digitally in the last six months via mainstream outlets in the UK and 21.8% has released music physically. 17.8% has also received national airplay in the UK over this same period and 51.5% has received regional airplay. Eight respondents have received a chart entry in the UK official charts.

Questions 16-18: These responses will answer the second research objectives:

2. (a) Which methods of promotion and marketing do artists regard as the most important? (b) What value does an artist place on the chosen method?

Out of a sample of one hundred, 29% of respondents identified live/ticketed events as the most important promotion and marketing method for new music today. This is followed by national radio and television broadcasting (22%), social media (19%), publicity and PR (15%), online video (9%), word of mouth (4%) and finally critical review and free online radio (1% each). Figure 10 below offers further incite through cross-tabulation of the respondents most valued outcome against each chosen method. For live/ticketed events, increases a fanbase is the most valued outcome (51.7%); followed by builds awareness (31%), drives sales (13.8%) and influences new music discovery (3.4%). For the respondents who chose national radio and television, 36.4% identified drives sales, followed by increases a fanbase (31.8%), influences new music discovery (18.2%) and builds awareness (13.6%). Social media received 63.2% for increases a fanbase, builds awareness received 31.6% and drives sales received 5.3%. No respondents chose

23 Including: merchandise, TV and film synchronizations, online subscription and the “other” category.

45 influences new music discovery for social media. Increases a fanbase was the most valued outcome for publicity and PR (40%), followed by builds awareness (33.3%), drives sales (20%) and finally influences new music discovery (6.7%). Online video received 44.4% for both increases a fanbase and builds awareness, drive sales received 11.1% and influences new music discovery received no responses. Word of mouth received only four responses, with two citing increases a fanbase and one response each for both builds awareness and influences new music discovery. Lastly, free online radio and critical review received only two responses, with both respondents choosing builds awareness as the most valued outcome for these two methods.

Figure 10.

It seems that the results above share some elements found by NPD Group (2011) and the case study above, although there are also key differences. Firstly, more respondents than any other method chose national radio and television as an influencer of new music discovery, which supports the findings by NPD Group (2011) displayed in Figure 1. Secondly, as the radio case study above highlights, the most valued outcome of national radio exposure is that it drives sales, which is the most important indicator of record

46 success according to the BBC and the record industry (as discussed above). It is surprising to note, however, how under represented word of mouth promotion is within the sample, as well as online video and free online radio, given how influential it is according to NPD Group (2011). Lastly, the importance placed on live/ticketed events can be further explained through a cross-tabulation of those respondents who have released recorded material within the last six months against national airplay and overall income from music (see Appendix 12). Although the sample is relatively small (with thirty-six cases), it seems that more respondents receive their main income from live/ticketed events than recorded music sales – even those who have received national airplay. Given the nature of the record industry and the dwindling revenues from record sales overall, as discussed above, this is not a surprise. In light of this, it might be argued that respondents have no choice but to increase live/ticketed events in the hope that they may ultimately increase a fanbase, which in turn builds awareness and drives sales.

Sixty-two respondents also provided additional explanations of why they had chosen the particular method (see Appendix 13). As identified above, live/ticketed events especially increases a fanbase and drives sales; it was also largely regarded as being authentic among other reasons. A majority of respondents explained that national radio and television reaches more people and is crucial for breaking through, which is seemingly contradictory to the 68.3% of respondents who chose drives sales and increases a fanbase as the most valued outcome. Publicity and PR also builds awareness/reaches more people, increases a fanbase, and is crucial for breaking through. None of the respondents, however, mentioned that it drives sales. Social media was chosen largely on the grounds of being efficient, but also because it is cost effective and builds awareness/reaches more people. Despite the results in Figure 10 above, only two respondents cited that it increases a fanbase. Online video was mainly chosen because it reaches more people, but also because it is efficient, cost effective and easy to use. Word of mouth respondents mostly cited influences new music discovery and increases advocacy. Lastly, critical review is considered crucial for breaking through and free online radio reaches more people/builds awareness, according to only two respondents. In triangulating these findings, apparently, the open-ended responses support the coded answers to some degree, although a discrepancy can be noted with respect to reach/building awareness. This suggests that respondents are not clear about the meaning of building awareness through reaching more people, possibly associating “increasing a fanbase” with “reach” instead.

Questions 19-21: These responses will answer the third research objectives:

3. (a) Which key Web 2.0 platforms are used for promoting and marketing new music online? (b) What value does an artist place on the chosen online platform?

Figure 11 below displays the most important Web 2.0 platforms for promoting and marketing new music online. Out of ninety-seven valid24 responses, YouTube received 54.6%, followed by Facebook (28.9%), Soundcloud (6.2%) and ReverbNation (4.1%). Myspace, Twitter and LinkedIn received 1% each.

Figure 11.

Thirty-nine respondents also freely explained why their platform is the most important for promoting new music (see Appendix 14). The responses suggest that YouTube was chosen largely because more and more people use it and it influences new music discovery, as found in NPD Group (2011). After that, respondents suggest that it is the first place to go when checking out an artist or a song; it also drives online activity, creates a strong association between image and music and is quick and easy to use. Similarly,

24 Four were remove because they did not enter valid online promotional platforms in the text box provided.

Facebook was chosen as more and more people use it, which drives online activity and creates a direct connection with fans. It can also be used as a hub and integrated elsewhere. Although the remaining responses are low, Soundcloud was cited because more and more people use it and it can be integrated elsewhere. One respondent also suggested that it created opportunities for industry interaction. Lastly, ReverbNation increases a fanbase, according to one respondent.

Looking further at the pre-coded responses for each platform reveals clearer distinctions between each valued outcome, as compared with the explanations above that are more general. Figure 12 below represents ninety-five cross-tabulated responses. YouTube respondents largely value increasing a fanbase the most (65.5%). Facebook is split between building awareness (48.1%) and increasing a fanbase (44.4%). Soundcloud has 50% for increasing a fanbase, followed by 33.3% for building awareness. Google+ has 100% and ReverbNation has 75% for increasing a fanbase. Twitter’s one respondent values increasing a fanbase and Myspace and LinkedIn’s two respondents value building awareness. These results are generally consistent with the cross-tabulated responses in Figure 10, where influencing new music discovery and driving sales are the least valued outcome overall.

Figure 12.

Additionally, a further set of responses from ninety-four valid cases (see Appendix 15) suggests a high agreement rate for the following uses and explanations across all eight platforms, with one or two exceptions: it makes a measurable difference, is cheap to use, is expected by the industry and is influential for new music discovery. These platforms are also largely used to reach people who only consume music, as well as those who interact and engage with people whom share/influence others and promote the sale of recorded music. Interestingly, YouTube and Facebook received lower responses for “used to reach people who only consume music,” which suggests that more active users who interact and engage with this type of platform/media are preferred to passive observers. It is also interesting to note that although respondents largely agreed that social media and online video is used to influence new music discovery, it is not the outcome that is valued the most as seen in Figure 12 above.

An additional layer of cross-tabulation allows for a set of KPIs to be established, based on the most pertinent outcomes revealed in Figure 12 (see Appendix 16). Firstly, out of the respondents who place more importance on increasing a fanbase as the most valued outcome, over 90% agree that their chosen platform generates engagement and appreciation around an artist. Secondly, for the respondents who valued driving sales, a majority agreed that the different platforms influence online or offline purchase behavior (or a response/action of some kind). Thirdly, those who chose building awareness as the most valued outcome all agree that the given platform builds awareness of an artist online and offline. Fourthly, the respondents who value influencing new music discovery virtually all agree25 that the platform generates buzz, advocacy and word of mouth online and offline. Therefore, these four elements represent The 4 A’s, which can be used to evaluate success as defined above within the IAB Framework.

Question 22: These responses will answer the forth research objective:

4. How is digital currency comparable against other similar forms of online promotion, platform by platform?

APPRECIATION. Figure 13 below is comprised of mean values for a wide variety of metrics, all cross-tabulated with respondents’ most important platform. In order to increase the validity of the data, a third dimension was added, whereby respondents were only included if they had both strongly agreed and agreed that their chosen platform “generates

25 With the exception of the one Soundcloud respondent.

50 engagement/appreciation around an artist”. Hence, this sample is primarily based upon a core appreciation metric. The drawback of this, however, is that there are fewer values within the sample, which affects the range. Consequently, six responses that had particularly high values over the figure of two thousand were also removed, so that the mean would be more representative of a majority of responses with lower values. It can be noted that the mean number of fans, subscribers and/or followers gained in total over a four-week period through social/video media is 169.13. Comments, posts and/or mentions has a mean of 46.71. Likes (per comment/post) is 173.62, sends is 32.18, video plays is 2,089, song plays is 1,374, direct messages is 48.87, click-throughs per link is 1,382, standard bookmarks is 4.25 and email addresses is 60.67. Despite the small sample size, it would seem that there are subtle differences between the two most popular platforms, YouTube and Facebook. The former appears to have a higher number of mean fans/subscribers/followers, video plays, song plays, direct messages and click- throughs (per link). The latter has a higher mean number of comments/posts/mentions, likes (per comment/post), sends, standard bookmarks and email addresses. Whilst the other platforms have received low responses, ReverbNation has received a high mean number of song plays, similar to Facebook. Soundcloud has received a considerably larger mean value of video plays than Facebook, as well as direct messages, standard bookmarks and email addresses in total. Myspace, Google+ and LinkedIn have much lower mean scores, due to the sample size.

Figure 13.

ACTION. Figure 14 below is again cross-tabulated with the respondents’ most important online platform against three action metrics: artist website referrals, professional leads/enquiries and direct sales. To increase the validity of the data, a third dimension ensures that all respondents within the sample either strongly agreed or agreed that their chosen platform “influences online or offline purchase behaviour”. As explored in Figure 12, driving sales is one of the lowest valued outcomes, which impacts on the number of valid samples. As a result, the respondents who were removed from the sample in Figure 13, due to high values, are included. Over a four-week period, the mean number of artist website referrals reported from social/video media is 255.82. Professional leads/enquiries received a mean number of 9.83 and direct sales received 21.83. From this low response rate, it might be suggested that a significant number of respondents are not aware of how action metrics may be tracked across multiple platform journeys, as per Dzamic (2012). However, despite this, it would seem that YouTube is largely represented across all three metrics. After YouTube, Soundcloud would appear to have generated the next largest mean number of artist website referrals, as there are no responses from

Facebook, as well as for professional leads/enquiries. Only YouTube and Facebook respondents have supplied direct sales values.

Figure 14.

AWARENESS. Figure 15 below is cross-tabulated with the respondents’ most important online platform against three awareness metrics: unique page views, impressions and blog posts/articles or reviews (BAR). A third dimension has been added, based on respondents who strongly agreed and agreed that their most important online platform “builds awareness of an artists (online and offline)”. Although the sample is again relatively small, the six respondents with high values are filtered out, as these results affected the mean values considerably within this group. Over the same four-week period, the mean value observed for unique page views is 1,643.85, followed by 507.55 for impressions and 10.10 for blog posts/articles or reviews. It is surprising to note a lower number of impressions for YouTube, despite a greater number of responses than Facebook. However, the platform has a higher mean value for both unique pageviews and BAR. Facebook,

53 although higher for impressions, seems to have generated a lower score for BAR with only one response. In contrast, Soundcloud has received a higher mean value for both impressions and BAR, compared with Facebook.

Figure 15.

ADVOCACY. Figure 16 below is cross-tabulated with the respondents’ most important online platform against four advocacy metrics: tweets/re-tweets (per comment/post), shares, social bookmarks26 and widget/embeds. All respondents strongly agreed and agreed that their chosen platform “generates buzz, advocacy or word-of-mouth”. Again, the six respondents with high values are filtered out from the results table. In total, the

26 E.g. Digg, Stumbleupon and Reddit.

54 mean score over a four-week period for tweets/re-tweets (per comment/post) is 229.50, shares is 418.58, social bookmarks is 93.29 and widget/embeds is 66.45. Twitter appears within the most important platforms for advocacy, generating the second highest mean score for widget/embeds after ReverbNation, which specialises in customizable player widgets/apps for other platforms. Facebook, for the first time, appears to have outperformed YouTube on all four metrics, although the low widget/embeds response suggests that fewer Facebook advocators have widgets/apps that can be embedded elsewhere. A high mean value for tweets/re-tweets per comment/post from the Facebook platform is possibly explained because of the synchronisation between Facebook and Twitter, where Facebook activity is automatically posted to Twitter. Hence, a number of respondents explained that Facebook is used as a hub, in order to push out information to other platforms (see Appendix 14). Although YouTube has a high mean number of shares, it is interesting to note that fewer respondents supplied values for social bookmarks and widgets. This is particularly surprising, especially with respect to embeddable YouTube links and players, suggesting that tracking again might explain a lack of data as per Dzamic (2012). The mean value for Myspace also seems to be invalid, based on the same numbers for each metric. LinkedIn received no advocacy values at all.

Figure 16.

Question 23: The final question received twenty responses explaining whether the questionnaire had raised any issues about digital currency. Figure 17 below represents the coded responses, which have been cross-tabulated by online platform choice. The majority of comments suggested that the questionnaire had raised important issues concerning promotion and marketing of music online. For example, one respondent noted the following: ‘you have introduced me to parameters which I hadn’t thought of or considered but which on reflection are important and measurable’ (no. 24). Another respondent commented on the importance of tracking how the core fanbase is used to increase advocacy within their social circles (no. 64). Three respondents seemed to be confused between the difference between promotion and distribution. For example, why the platforms Spotify and CD Baby had not been included? However, only four respondents from the entire sample chose the “not listed” category from the pre-coded platform list, which suggests that the majority of

56 platforms were present27. Interestingly, only one comment was received reaffirming a need to stop illegal downloading; another respondent acknowledged that it is hard to make money from music in this current digital climate. Engaging with professional third-parties was also mentioned as an important next step. Finally, one Facebook respondent raised an important point about the difficulty of tracking statistics/insights accurately, which provides yet more evidence to support Dzamic (2012). This respondent also suggests that the primary focus with the Facebook platform is to build awareness and give the artist as much exposure as possible, which supports the findings in Figure 12.

Figure 17.

27 One respondent cited other promotional platforms that had not been pre-coded within the questionnaire: Broadjam, Sonicbids and the online radio platform, Jango.

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings of this research indicate that although Web 2.0 has brought about a significant change for consumers and creators, national radio broadcasting remains a dominant and influential promotional channel for the music industry, as found by Hendy (2000), McLean et al (2010), Percival (2011) and the consumer research by NPD Group (2011). Not only has this effect been highlighted through empirical research, it has also been previously emphasised in the context of economics, politics and culture by McLuhan (1962), Habermas (1984, 1987) and Baudrillard (1987). Hence, broadcasting not only influences music taste by reaching large audiences, thus increasing a fanbase, it is an important driver of record sales – at a time when the value of recorded music continues to fall globally. This conclusion is based on triangulated findings from both the case study example of Radio 1 and the questionnaire sample, indicating that national broadcasting is the most influential promotion and marketing method for new music today. In light of this, the case study has also revealed that national radio exposure and chart sales increases activity online (see Appendix 7 and 8). The questionnaire respondents who valued social media, online video and online radio as a means of building awareness and appreciation of an artist further support this finding, as does the social media case study of Lady Gaga. This indicates that the mass media model does in fact influence online behavior. Therefore, users of large information-sharing networks do not necessarily destabilize the recording industry. These platforms in fact compliment a multi-channel approach to promotion and marketing instead of undermining it, as suggested by Küng (2008), through the increased interconnectedness and value derived from the number of users on a given network (Metcalf’s Law). More recently, this value has started to translate into revenue, due to the increase in legal digital services and converging sectors of media, technology and communication (e.g. Facebook/Spotify), although mainly for a majority of established artists with major record companies. Instead, the research suggests that for those artists who receive an income from music at all, a significant proportion within this sample earn most of their earnings from live/ticketed events, especially those who have been making money for more than two years. Subsequently, the harsh reality for a number of aspiring artists is that “success” in the music industry still appears to be measured by record sales, airplay and chart activity, although clearly other revenue streams have become important (from the live sector particularly). Despite artists receiving national airplay, however, a distinction has also been made between spotplays and the official playlist on Radio 1: those artists who have received national airplay, and released a record commercially, still receive their main source of income from live/ticketed events. Hence, making an impact on the record buying

58 public (through radio broadcasting) requires playlisting and continued support from key programmers and presenters. An emphasis has therefore been placed on the benefits of appealing to more niche/specialist-orientated presenters on Radio 1, where crossover potential exists to influence mainstream programming schedules across the board. However, until artists are able and ready to reach out to these key taste makers (largely through third-party representatives) and receive the broad exposure that is required to stimulate sales (and online activity), Web 2.0 provides a means to otherwise generate value through increasing a fanbase, building awareness and (arguably) influencing new music discovery; although the most revealing finding indicates that live/ticket events are believed to be the most importance method for artists overall.

Fundamentally, the findings have identified that YouTube and Facebook are currently the most important Web 2.0 platforms for promoting new music, followed by Soundcloud, ReverbNation and Google+ respectively. From the sample of respondents that chose these platforms, increasing a fanbase (through engagement and appreciation) and building awareness were two of the most valued KPIs. Thus, in order to measure effectiveness across different Web 2.0 platforms, this research has set out to create a set of benchmarks for the music industry – based on a common set of metrics that may be assigned to all four groups: awareness, appreciation, action and advocacy (The 4 A’s). This research has adapted the IAB Framework, which demonstrates that digital currency can be clearly defined, measured and quantified, however it has also highlighted that a large proportion of artists are not aware of the different means by which value can be represented through a combination of research, attention, interest, desire, action and referral (RAIDAR). Non- response for a number of metrics indicates this, as well as the suggestion that tracking results can be difficult (Dzamic, 2012). Overall, the appreciation metrics received the most responses, suggesting that these values are more readily available and understood by respondents, followed by awareness. Advocacy received the next highest number of values, although it was underrepresented as an important KPI, and Action metrics received the lowest response with little in the way of direct sales statistics. Through these findings, it has been demonstrated that different platforms may be used in combination to maximize value with Web 2.0.

Due to the limitations of using email to obtain responses from the questionnaire (namely non-response and self-selection), a small sample size has made it difficult to cross-tabulate and compare means with a large number of variables (e.g. genre, platform choice and metrics). Although reminder emails were sent and opened, the number of respondents that clicked on the questionnaire link reduced significantly each time. Future research would

59 therefore benefit from a larger database to increase the validity of the information collected. This would be particularly beneficial for creating a more reliable benchmark, which requires a mean score (per metric) for each platform choice. It would also provide further incite into other important platforms that have received low response rates, due to the dominance of Facebook and YouTube (e.g. Twitter). Future research may also take in to account how artists already use a range of platforms, which might offer alternative, “effective” combinations. Lastly, the case study approach provided an opportunity to test a particular theory and triangulate the results with a questionnaire survey. However, future research might benefit from looking at additional contrasting cases, so that results might be compared further.

To conclude, this research makes a recommendation for artists to become more aware of their intentions online. The implications are that artists must evaluate what success is and be mindful of how effective (or ineffective) Web 2.0 platforms can be for promoting and marketing new music. Above all, the more worrying consequence for artists is that Web 2.0, on its own, drives little in the way of sales without a multi-channel approach to promotion and marketing. This is expensive and often requires third-party involvement. However, it would seem that a significant portion of artists already working at this level are largely mainstream orientated, suggesting that industry representatives (e.g. management, music producers and pluggers) are concentrating their efforts on daytime/popular music genres. And so, the recommendation for industry representatives is to broaden their musical horizons by working with more specialist/niche artists with crossover appeal. After all, Leonhard and Kusek (2005, p.28) make an important distinction with respect to niche markets, whereby success can be achieved with lower unit sales by targeting fewer people; niche marketing can therefore focus promotional expenditure at lower burn rates where it will bring greater results. Hence, distinctive and established niche markets have significant ‘pros’ when compared with the ‘cons’ of appealing to a mainstream, mass audience.

Chapter 8: References

A&M Records, Inc VS. Napster, Inc. (2001). Available: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/239/239.F3d.1004.00- 16403.00-16401.html Last accessed 12/05/11.

AIM. (2011). Submission to the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. Available: http://www.musicindie.com/home Last accessed 12/05/11.

Alderman, J. (2001). Free For All. The Guardian (London), 04 August.

Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand. London: Random House Business Books.

Anderson, J., Reckhenrich, J. and Kupp, M. (2011). Lady Gaga: Born this way, case, Antwerp: Antwerp Management Schoool.

Ashton, R. (2011). Court challenge defeated...but is the Digital Economy Act workable? Music Week, 30 April.

Baudrillard, J. (1987) The Ecstasy of Communications. New York: Semiotext(e).

BBC Radio 1. (2012). BBC Radio 1 England – Schedule. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/programmes/schedules/england Last accessed: 17/1/13.

Bennett, A. and Peterson, R.A. (2004). Music Scenes: Local, Translocal and Virtual. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Burnett, R. (1996). The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London: Routledge.

Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Hervas-Drane, A. (2010). Competing Against Online Sharing, 48 (8): 1247-1260. CBS Song vs. Amstrad. (1988). Available: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipcass/ipcass-legislation/ipcass-legislation-copyact- 1956/ipcass-cbs.htm Last accessed 12/05/11.

Collins, S. and Young, S. (2010). A View from the Trenches of Music 2.0. Popular Music and Society, 33(3): 339-355.

Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S, J. (2007). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3): 231-244.

Davis, J. (2003). Intellectual Property Law. New York: Oxford University Press.

Digital Economy Act. (2010). London: The Stationary Office.

Digital Music News. (2011). Study: FM Radio Is Still the Biggest Source for Music Discovery. Available: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111113fmradio Last accessed 28/10/12.

Drury, G. (2008). Social media: Should marketers engage and how can it be done effectively? Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9: 274-277.

Dzamic, L. (2012). The hunt for the red herring: Measuring commercial effects of social media. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 13(3): 198-206.

Elberse, A. and Christensen, M. Q. (2011a). Lady Gaga (A) [Case study]. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. (Revised from original July 2011 version).

Elberse, A. and Christensen, M. Q. (2011b). Lady Gaga (B) [Case study]. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. (Revised from original August 2011 version).

Federman, M. (2004). What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message? Available: http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/MeaningTheMediumistheMessage.pdf. Last accessed 25/5/12.

Field, S. (2012a). Telephone conversation with Simon Field (Radiomonitor). 3/10/12.

Field, S. (2012b). Radio Monitor Contact Form. [[email protected]] [sent on 3/10/12].

Forrester Research. (2010). Empowered. Available: http://empowered.forrester.com/ladder2010/ Last accessed: 20/11/12.

Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Gubbins, M. (2011). ISPs dead in the water after DEA defeat - but we still need proper enforcement. Music Week, 30 April. p.4.

Habermas, J. (1984). Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Volume 1 of The Theory of Communicative Action, English translation by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press (originally published in German in 1981).

Habermas, J. (1987). Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Volume 2 of The Theory of Communicative Action, English translation by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press (originally published in German in 1981).

Hendy, D. (2000). Pop music radio in the public service: BBC Radio 1 and new music in the 1990s. Media, Culture and Society, 22(6): 743-761.

IFPI. (2012). Digital Music Report 2012. Available: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2012.pdf Last accessed 16/01/13.

Ingham, T. (2012). Google to punish pirate sites in search results. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/google-to-punish-pirate-sites-in-search-results Last accessed 10/10/12.

Innis, H, A. (1950). Empire and Communications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs Media Tech. (2011). Jacobs Media’s 7th Annual Survey of Radio Listeners. Available: http://www.jacobsmedia.com/techvii/default.asp Last accessed: 28/10/12.

Kaplan, B., Truex, D.P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A.T., and DeGross, J.I. (eds.). (2004). Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Klein, N. (2000). No Logo. London: Flamingo.

Kuipers, G. (2012). Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog380/pdf. Last accessed 25/5/12.

Küng, L. (2008). Strategic Management in the Media. Theory to Practice. London: Sage Publications.

LastFM. (2012). Sam and The Womp. Available: http://www.last.fm/music/Sam+and+the+Womp Last accessed 17/1/13.

Leonhard, G. and Kusek, D. (2005). The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution. Bolston: Berklee Press.

Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Penguin Books

Leyshon, A. (2003). Scary Monsters? Software Formats, Peer-to-peer Networks, and the Spectre of the Gift. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(5): 533–58.

Leyshon, A., Webb, P., French, F., Thrift, N. and Crewe, L. (2005). On the reproduction of the musical economy after the Internet. Media, Culture & Society, 27(2): 177-209.

McLean, R., Oliver, P. G. and Wainwright, D. W. (2010). The myths of empowerment through information communication technologies: An exploration of the music industries and fan bases. Management Decision, 48(9): 1365-1377.

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Meisel, J. B. and Sullivan, T. S. (2002). The Impact on of the Internet on the law and economics of the music industry, 4(2): 16-22.

MGM VS. Grokster. (2005). Available: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/opinion.pdf Last accessed 12/05/11.

Mintel Oxygen. (2007). Pre-Recorded Music. Mintel Oxygen, 1(1).

Molteni, L. and Ordanini, A. (2003). Consumption Patterns, Digital Technology and Music Downloading. Long Range Planning, 36(4): 389-406.

Music Metric. (2012). Musicmetric Digital Music Index. Available: http://static.semetric.com/dmi/Musicmetric_DMI_Extended_Summary_2012.pdf Last accessed: 13/01/12

Music Week. (2010). IFPI report claims artists still need labels. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/ifpi- report-claims-artists-still-need-labels. Last accessed 12/10/12.

Music Week. (2012a). Official Charts Analysis: Sam & The Womp top 100k sales to hit No.1. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/official-charts-analysis-sam-the-womp-top-100k-sales-to-hit-no-1/051529 Last accessed 16/01/13.

Music Week. (2012b). Radio Playlists. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/tag/radio-playlists Last accessed: 17/1/13.

Music Week. (2012c). Music Week Digital Edition. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/digital-edition Last accessed: 17/1/13.

Myers, M. D., and Avison, D. E. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research in information systems. In M. D. Myers & D. E. Avison (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Information Systems (pp. 3-12). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Negus, K. (1993). Global Harmonies and Local Discords: Transnational Policies and Practices in the European Recording Industry. European Journal of Communication, 8(3): 295-316.

Negus, K. (1999). Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. Oxon: Routledge

Neilsen. (2012). Music Discovery Still Dominated by Radio, Says Nielsen Music 360 Report. Available: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/press-room/2012/music-discovery-still-dominated-by-radio--says-nielsen-music- 360.html Last accessed: 28/10/12

Niehaves, B. and Bernd, C. Stahl. (2006). Criticality, epistemology and behaviour vs. Design – information systems research across different sets of paradigms. ECIS 2006 Proceedings, Paper 166.

NPD Group. (2011). NARM and The NPD Group Unveil Results of Research Report on Consumers and Music Discovery. Available: https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr_111110/ Last accessed 28/10/12.

Olivier, B. (2003). Thorstein Veblen's Theory of Institutional Change: Beyond Technological Determinism. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10(3): 455-477.

Pakinkis, T. (2012). Deezer confirms $130m investment from Warner Music parent. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/deezer-confirms-130m-investment-from-warner-music-parent. Last accessed 11/10/12.

Parkin, G. (2009). Digital Marketing: Strategies for Online Success. London: New Holland Publishers.

Pentin, R. (2010). A New Framework For Measuring Social Media Activity. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80740365/iabmeasurementframeworkforsocialmediafinal43-100517154611-phpapp02 Last accessed: 14/01/13.

Percival, J, M. (2011). Music Radio and the Record Industry: Songs, Sounds, and Power. Popular Music and Society, 34(4): 455-473.

Preston, P. and Rogers, J. (2011). Social networks, legal innovations and the "new" music industry. Industry and Public Sector Management, 13(6): 8-19.

Pynnönen, M., Ritala, P. and Hallikas, J (2011). The New Meaning Of Customer Value: A Systemic Perspective. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(1): 51-57.

Rajar. (2012). Rajar listening figures. Available: http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php#station_30607 Last accessed 27/10/12.

ReverbNation. (2012). Digital Distribution: Get Your Music on iTunes and More. Available: http://www.reverbnation.com/band-promotion/how-to-sell-music-on-itunes Last accessed 11/10/12.

Stief, C. (2008). Globalization: An Overview of Globalization and Its Positive and Negative Aspects. Available: http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/globalization.htm. Last accessed 25/5/2012.

Stokes, R. (2008). eMarketing: The essential guide to digital marketing. 4th ed. London: Quirk eMarketing (Pty) Ltd.

Streten, K. (2009). Simple social media marketing: Promoting Creative Spaces. Available: http://www.slideshare.net/Imagination_Digital/using-the-iab-measuremen Last Accessed: 14/01/13.

Vaccaro, L. V. and Cohn, D. Y. (2004). The Evolution of Business Models and Marketing Strategies in the Music Industry. International Journal on Media Management. 6(1&2): 46-48. Veal, A, J. (2006). Research Methods For Leisure and Tourism. Dorchester: Prentice Hall.

YouTube. (2012). Sam and The Womp – Bom Bom (Official Video). Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsy7kJyizoc Last accessed: 17/1/13.

Chapter 9: Bibliography

Books

Alderman, J. (2001) Sonic Boom: Napster, P2P and the Battle for the Future of Music. London: HarperCollins.

Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand. London: Random House Business Books.

Baudrillard, J. (1987) The Ecstasy of Communications. New York: Semiotext(e).

Burnett, R. (1996). The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London: Routledge.

Cornish, W. (2006). Intellectual Property. 5th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Davies, M. B. (2007). Doing a Successful Research Project. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davis, J. (2003). Intellectual Property Law. New York: Oxford University Press

Fahy, J. and Jobber, D. (2006). Foundations of Marketing. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Hayward, M (2009). Any colour you like as long as it's any colour you like. London: Dunnhumby.

Howe, J. (2009). Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. London: Random House Business Books.

Hutchison, T., Macy, A., Allen, P. (2010). Record Label Marketing. Oxford: Focal Press.

Jackson, D. M. (2003). Sonic Branding. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy. Essex: Pearson Education.

Klein, N. (2000). No Logo. London: Flamingo.

Küng, L. (2008). Strategic Management in the Media. Theory to Practice. London: Sage Publications.

Leonhard, G. and Kusek, D. (2005). The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution. Bolston: Berklee Press.

Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Penguin Books

Li, C. and Bernoff, J. (2008). Grounswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston: Hardvard Business School Publishing.

Negroponte, N. (1996). Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books.

Negus, K. (1999). Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. Oxon: Routledge

Parkin, G. (2009). Digital Marketing: Strategies for Online Success. London: New Holland Publishers.

Passman, S. D. (2011). All You Need to Know About the Music Business. 7th ed. London: Penguin Books.

Ryan, D. and Jones, C. (2009). Understanding Digital Marketing: Marketing strategies for engaging the digital generation. London: Kogan Page.

Stokes, R. (2008). eMarketing: The essential guide to digital marketing. 4th ed. London: Quirk eMarketing (Pty) Ltd.

Tapscott, D. and Williams, A, D. (2008). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. London: Atlantic Books.

Veal, A, J. (2006). Research Methods For Leisure and Tourism. Dorchester: Prentice Hall.

Vogel, H. L. (2007). Entertainment Industry Economics: A guide for financial analysis. 7th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Academic Journals

Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Hervas-Drane, A. (2010). Competing Against Online Sharing, 48 (8): 1247-1260.

Collins, S. and Young, S. (2010). A View from the Trenches of Music 2.0. Popular Music and Society, 33(3): 339-355.

Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S, J. (2007). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3): 231-244.

Drury, G. (2008). Social media: Should marketers engage and how can it be done effectively? Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9: 274-277.

Dzamic, L. (2012). The hunt for the red herring: Measuring commercial effects of social media. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 13(3): 198-206.

Foong, C. (2010). Sharing With Creative Commons: A Business Model for Content Creators. Journal of Media and Communication: Yes, We’re Open! Why Open Source, Open Content and Open Access. A Creative Commons Special Edition (December): 64-93.

Graham, G., Burnes, B., Lewis, J. G., Langer, J. (2004). The transformation of the music industry supply chain: A major label perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24 (11): 1087-1103.

Hendy, D. (2000). Pop music radio in the public service: BBC Radio 1 and new music in the 1990s. Media, Culture and Society, 22(6): 743-761.

Lee, G. (2010). Death of 'last click wins': Media attribution and the expanding use of media data. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing, 12(1): 16-26.

Leyshon, A. (2003). Scary Monsters? Software Formats, Peer-to-peer Networks, and the Spectre of the Gift. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(5): 533–58.

Leyshon, A., Webb, P., French, F., Thrift, N. and Crewe, L. (2005). On the reproduction of the musical economy after the Internet. Media, Culture & Society, 27(2): 177-209.

Meisel, J. B. and Sullivan, T. S. (2002). The Impact on of the Internet on the law and economics of the music industry. 4(2): 16-22.

Molteni, L. and Ordanini, A. (2003). Consumption Patterns, Digital Technology and Music Downloading. Long Range Planning, 36(4): 389-406.

Negus, K. (1993). Global Harmonies and Local Discords: Transnational Policies and Practices in the European Recording Industry. European Journal of Communication, 8(3): 295-316.

Olivier, B. (2003). Thorstein Veblen's Theory of Institutional Change: Beyond Technological Determinism. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10(3): 455-477.

Percival, J, M. (2011). Music Radio and the Record Industry: Songs, Sounds, and Power. Popular Music and Society, 34(4): 455-473.

Preston, P. and Rogers, J. (2011). Social networks, legal innovations and the "new" music industry. Industry and Public Sector Management, 13(6): 8-19.

Pynnönen, M., Ritala, P. and Hallikas, J. (2011). The New Meaning Of Customer Value: A Systemic Perspective. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(1): 51-57.

Stroud, D. (2007). Social networking: An age-neutral commodity - Social networking becomes a mature web application. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3): 278-292.

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E. and Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of Word-of-Mouth Verses Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site. Journal of Marketing, 73: 90-102.

Vaccaro, L. V. and Cohn, D. Y. (2004). The Evolution of Business Models and Marketing Strategies in the Music Industry. International Journal on Media Management, 6(1&2): 46-48.

Weinberg, B, D. and Berger, P. D. (2011). Connected customer lifetime value: The impact of social media. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing, 12(4): 328-344.

Consumer Research

Forrester Research. (2010). Empowered. Available: http://empowered.forrester.com/ladder2010/ Last accessed: 20/11/12.

E-Resources

Dertouzos, J. (2008). Radio Airplay and the Record Industry. Available: www.nab.org/documents/resources/061008_Dertouzos_Ptax.pdf Last accessed: 13/1/13

Dybwad, B. (2010). The Growth of Social Media (Video). Available: http://mashable.com/2010/05/07/social-media- stats-video/ Last accessed: 13/01/13

ESMT. (2011). Learning from Lady Gaga. Available: http://www.esmt.org/sixcms/detail.php?id=308739 Last accessed: 14/1/13

Glenn, D. (2012). This History of Social Media from 1978-2012. Available: http://socialtimes.com/the-history-of-social- media-from-1978-2012-infographic_b89811 Last accessed: 16/01/13

IAB. (2010). Social media measurement framework. Available: http://www.iabuk.net/news/social-media-measurement- framework Last accessed: 16/1/13.

IFPI. (2012). Digital Music Report 2012. Available: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2012.pdf Last accessed 16/01/13.

Leonhard, G. (2012). Making a living with music in a digital world. Available: http://www.mediafuturist.com/2012/02/new-video-midem-academy-2012-making-a-living-with-music-in-a-digital- world.html Last accessed: 16/01/13

Masnick, M. (2010). The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There). Available: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml Last accessed: 16/01/13.

Music Metric. (2012). Musicmetric Digital Music Index. Available: http://static.semetric.com/dmi/Musicmetric_DMI_Extended_Summary_2012.pdf Last accessed: 13/01/12

Music Week. (2012). Official Charts Analysis: Sam & The Womp top 100k sales to hit No.1. Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/official-charts-analysis-sam-the-womp-top-100k-sales-to-hit-no-1/051529 Last accessed 16/01/13.

Nobel, C. (2011). HBS Cases: Lady Gaga. Available: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6812.html Last accessed: 14/1/13

Pfahl, M. (2005). Giving Away Music to Make Money: Independent Musicians on the Internet. Available: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1454/1369 Last accessed: 16/01/13

Radiomonitor. (2012). The UK Radio Airplay Chart. Available: http://www.esmt.org/sixcms/detail.php?id=308739 Last accessed: 14/1/13

Rajar. (2012). Rajar listening figures. Available: http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php#station_30607 Last accessed 27/10/12.

Riley, A. (2012). Social media success: impossible to measure? Available: http://www.iabuk.net/blog/social-media- success-impossible-to-measure Last accessed: 16/1/13

Streten, K. (2009). Simple social media marketing: Promoting Creative Spaces. Available: http://www.slideshare.net/Imagination_Digital/using-the-iab-measuremen Last Accessed: 14/01/13.

Websites www.bbc.com www.bpi.co.uk www.digitalmusicnews.com www.eff.org www.ifpi.org www.musically.com www.musicindie.com www.musicmetric.com www.musicweek.com www.officialcharts.com www.openrightsgroup.org www.oxygen.mintel.com

Appendix 1: Sam And The Womp: “Bom Bom” – Regional & Airplay (UK) 2012

Appendix 1: Continued

Source: Adapted from Field, S. (2012b).

Appendix 1: Continued

Source: Adapted from Field, S. (2012b).

Appendix 2: Sam And The Womp: “Bom Bom” – Music TV Airplay (UK) 2012

Source: Adapted from Field, S. (2012b).

Appendix 3: Artist Questionnaire

This survey will take approximately 7-12 minutes to complete.

New technologies and changing consumer behaviour has drastically reshaped the music industry. The phenomenon of this technological advancement lies in the opportunity to speak directly with music fans through a range of Web 2.0 social media networks and distribution platforms.

However, the challenge for artists, among other things, is to compete against mass marketing through cross-channel promotion (e.g. radio, television, film, newspaper, internet, etc). Not only this, but the saturation of new music available online (and offline) makes it increasingly difficult to stand out.

Hence, the overall aim of this research is to explore the use of Web 2.0 technology (by artists) as a promotional channel, in contrast to the more traditional institutions of radio, television and print media.

The underlying question that we are asking is: how does one measure success and effectiveness in the context of Web 2.0? E.g. what is a "Like" or "@mention" worth, for example, and does it make a measurable difference?

Section One: Artist Particulars

1. Are you an Artist or Representative?

a. Artist b. Representative

2. What is your primary musical occupation?

a. Songwriter b. Performer

3. Are you based in the UK or abroad?

a. United Kingdom b. Abroad

4. Which broad genre describes your music?

a. Avant-Garde b. Blues c. Country d. Easy Listening e. Electronic f. Hiphop & Rap g. Jazz h. Latin i. Modern Folk j. Pop k. Reggae

l. Rhythm & Blues m. Rock n. World o. Classical

5. Would you describe your music as being “Niche” or “Mainstream”?

a. Niche b. Mainstream c. Hard to say

6. Have you in the last six (6) months worked with any of the following third parties in the UK (please tick all applicable)?

a. Management b. Independent Record Label and/or Distributer c. Major Record Label and/or Distributer d. Publisher e. Booking Agent f. National Radio Plugger g. Regional Radio Plugger h. Online & Press Agent i. Music/Record Producer j. Music/Entertainment Lawyer k. None of the above l. Prefer not to say

7. How would you describe your current employment status? (please tick one)

a. Full-Time b. Part-Time c. Not Employed for pay d. Self-Employed e. Retired f. Student g. Consultant/Freelance h. Other i. Prefer not to say

8. How long have you been making money out of your music? (please tick one)

a. Less that 1 year b. Between 2 and 3 years c. More than 3 years d. Not at all e. Prefer not to say

9. Percentage of Annual income earned from being a songwriter or performer (please tick one)

a. 100% b. 60-99% c. 20-59% d. 1-19%

10. Select your Main income stream from music activities overall:

a. ☐ Digital recordings (per unit sales, i.e. iTunes) b. ☐ Physical recordings (per unit sales, e.g. online retailers, record stores or at gigs) c. ☐ Live/Ticketed concerts/shows d. ☐ Merchandise e. ☐ Sponsorship f. ☐ Endorsements g. ☐ Competitions h. ☐ Arts Council Funding i. ☐ Private Investor(s) j. ☐ TV & Film Sync k. ☐ Royalty Payments (e.g. MCPS/PRS/PPL for UK artists) l. ☐ Ad-supported online services (e.g. YouTube affiliate advertising) m. ☐ Online subscription services (e.g. Spotify) n. ☐ Ringtones o. ☐ Other ______(please specify) p. ☐ Not at all

Section Two: Music Release, Airplay & Charts

11. Have you in the last six (6) months released music digitally via mainstream retail outlets in the UK (i.e. iTunes, Amazon, 7digital, Spotify)? (please tick one)

a. Yes b. No

12. Have you in the last six (6) months released music physically via mainstream or specialist retail outlets/stores in the UK? (please tick one)

a. Yes b. No

13. Have you in the last six (6) months received national airplay on BBC Radio 1, 2, 1xtra or 6 Music in the UK (please tick one)?

a. Yes b. No

14. Have you in the last six (6) months received regional airplay on any AM/FM or Digital radio station in the UK (including regional BBC/introducing programmes)?

a. Yes b. No

15. Have you in the last six (6) months ranked in any of the following official charts in the UK? (please tick all applicable)

a. Singles b. Albums c. Digital download d. Digital streaming e. Indie f. Rock g. Alternative h. Urban i. Dance j. Country k. Classical l. World m. Asian n. Compilation o. Heritage p. No idea / Not applicable

Section Three: Traditional Vs. New Media

This section is about identifying which method of promotion is the most important to you, as an artist/representative. In light of this, we are interested to find out how each method is VALUED the most.

16. Select the MOST IMPORTANT method for marketing artists and promoting new music today:

a. ☐ Publicity/PR b. ☐ Critical Review c. ☐ National Radio/TV (BBC Radio 1, MTV, etc) d. ☐ Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud, etc) e. ☐ Online Video (YouTube, Vevo, etc) f. ☐ Free online radio (Last FM, Pandora, etc) g. ☐ Word of Mouth: Friends/family/co-workers h. ☐ Live concerts or shows

17. Explain in your own words why you chose this method (optionally)

Now, what do you think about these different methods for (1) increasing a FANBASE, (2) driving SALES, (3) building AWARENESS and (4) influencing NEW MUSIC DISCOVERY?

18. For each METHOD, select the outcome that you VALUE the most:

i. ☐ Live concerts or shows j. ☐ Publicity/PR k. ☐ Critical Review l. ☐ National Radio/TV (BBC Radio 1, MTV, etc) m. ☐ Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud, etc) n. ☐ Online Video (YouTube, Vevo, etc) o. ☐ Free online radio (Last FM, Pandora, etc) p. ☐ Word of Mouth: Friends/family/co-workers

(1) ☐ (2) ☐ (3) ☐ (4) ☐ or (5) ☐ I Don’t Know

Section Four: Your MOST IMPORTANT Web 2.0 platforms

This section is about Web 2.0 platforms on the Internet (e.g. social media, online video, online radio, etc). We would like to explore which platforms you VALUE the most for marketing and promoting new music online, whether you are an artist or artist representative.

Please NOTE: This section is NOT ABOUT the distribution of music online (e.g. through services like iTunes or 7digital), but the promotion and marketing of new music. i.e. how your audience is reached, engaged and influenced through these platforms.

19. Select the MOST IMPORTANT Web 2.0 platform for marketing and promoting NEW MUSIC online:

a. ☐ Facebook b. ☐ Myspace c. ☐ Last FM d. ☐ YouTube e. ☐ Twitter f. ☐ Bebo g. ☐ Google+ h. ☐ Linkedin i. ☐ Soundcloud j. ☐ Pandora k. ☐ BandCamp l. ☐ Sellaband m. ☐ MOG n. ☐ Reverbnation o. ☐ Amazon p. ☐ Grooveshark q. ☐ Napster

r. ☐ Slicethepie s. ☐ MP3.com t. ☐ None of These (______)

20. Explain in your own words why you chose this platform (optionally)

Similar to the previous section, the notion of VALUE is explored through the use of this particular technology: i.e. what actions it drives online and offline, how this is measured and why it's use is important to you (or necessary).

21. Choose the most relevant answer for each item statement below.

The MOST IMPORTANT platform identified above...

1. Builds awareness of an artist (online or offline): 2. Generates engagement around an artist (online): 3. Generates buzz, advocacy or word-of-mouth (online or offline) 4. Influences online or offline purchase behavior (or a response/action of some kind):

5. Is used to promote the sale of recorded music: 6. Is used to share recorded music, photos, stories and videos: 7. Is used to reach people who only consume music: 8. Is used to interact/engage with people who will share and influence others:

9. Is a necessity, because it makes a measurable difference: 10. Is a necessity, because it is cheap to use: 11. Is a necessity, because it is expected by the industry: 12. Is a necessity, because it is an influential for new music:

(1) Strongly Agree (2) Agree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree or (5) I Don’t Know

Section Five: Benchmarking your MOST IMPORTANT Web 2.0 platform

THIS IS THE LAST PAGE. You're nearly there and it's greatly appreciated!

When it comes to "digital currency" online, everyone seems to have a different idea of a "successful" promotional campaign. This is extremely difficult to measure, whether you're a DIY marketer or expert! Consequently, these answers are really important to explore some actual numbers. Don't worry if you don't know an answer to a question, just move onto the next one. YOU CAN FINISH AT ANY TIME by clicking continue at the bottom of the page.

APPRECIATION: In the last FOUR (4) WEEKS, how many:

(a) FANS, SUBSCRIBERS or FOLLOWERS have you gained from this platform? (b) COMMENTS/POSTS/MENTIONS have you gained from this platform? (c) LIKES (per comment/post) have you gained from this platform? (d) SENDS have you gained from this platform? (e) VIDEO PLAYS have you gained from this platform? (f) SONG PLAYS have you gained from this platform? (g) DIRECT MESSAGES have you gained from this platform? (h) CLICK-THROUGHS (per link) have you gained from this platform?

(i) STANDARD BOOKMARKS have you gained from this platform? (j) EMAIL ADDRESSES have you gained from this platform?

AWARENESS: In the last FOUR (4) WEEKS, how many:

(a) UNIQUE PAGE VIEWS have you gained from this platform? (b) IMPRESSIONS (people reached) have you gained from this platform? (c) BLOG POSTS, ARTICLES or REVIEWS have you gained from this platform?

ADVOCACY: In the last FOUR (4) WEEKS, how many:

(a) TWEETS/RE-TWEETS (per comment/post) have you gained from this platform? (b) SHARES have you gained from this platform? (c) SOCIAL BOOKMARKS (Digg, Stumbleupon, Reddit) have you gained … ? (d) WIDGET/EMBEDS have you gained from this platform?

ACTION: In the last FOUR (4) WEEKS, how many:

(a) ARTIST WEBSITE REFERRALS have you gained from this platform? (b) PROFESSIONAL LEADS/ENQUIRIES have you gained from this platform? (c) DIRECT SALES have you gained from this platform?

If you still have the energy, please tell us if this questionnaire has raised any issues for you about digital currency?

Appendix 4: Artist Questionnaire Email

Hi there,

I'm contacting you on behalf of ACA Music as you have previously provided us with your details for the artist, songwriter or performer on our database via the ACA submission form.

We are currently conducting research to explore the use of Web 2.0 technology (by artists) as a promotional channel, in contrast to the more traditional institutions of radio, television and print media. Our study is intended to further the area of artist development (online and offline) and it is an important, ongoing issue for the music industry.

The following Google link will take you to a questionnaire about your experiences as an artist or artist representative (whether you're from the UK or abroad). This will take approximately 7-15 minutes to complete and has five sections. All responses are completely anonymous and will be used for the purpose of academic research, in conjunction with London Metropolitan Business School.

If you are happy to get involved, please allow yourself enough time to answer with as much detail as possible. Your help is greatly appreciated: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEh1MjFWVFdZWTRUT01wY2NaT09GREE6MQ#gid=0

I'd also like to invite you to join our new networks below, in order to stay in touch and share in the debate.

Kind regards,

Jezz Haigh Senior Agent | Manager

______

ACA Music Management | Booking International Groups, Artists & DJs

Blenheim House, Henry Street, Bath, BA11JR. UK Tel: +44 (0)1225 428284 [email protected] http://artists.acamusic.co.uk

Appendix 5: BBC Radio 1 Plays of "Bom Bom" by Sam And The Womp over Time

BBC Radio 1 Plays of "Bom Bom" by Sam And The Womp over Time 30

10 Total Play Count

Weeks Played (Calculated Sunday to Saturday)

Greg James (Dance Anthems) Fearne Cotton Danny Howard (Dance Anthems) Nick Grimshaw (Dance Anthems) Chris Moyles/Nick Grimshaw DJ Target (1xtra Sunday) Scott Mills Toddla T (In New DJs) The Matt Edmondson Show Greg James Dev Danny & Vernon Kay (Dance Anthems) Gemma Cairney Sara Cox Huw Stephens Jameela Jamil (Request Show) Annie Mac & Nick Grimshaw Aled Reggie Yates (Chart Show) Vernon Kay Trevor Nelson Greg James (Chart Update)

Source: Compiled from Appendix 6.

Appendix 6: Sam And The Womp spreadsheet of plays, presenters, playlists, dates and charts, compiled from Music Week and BBC Radio 1.

Appendix 6: Continued

Source: Adapted from Music Week (2012b and 2012c) and BBC R1 (2012).

Appendix 7: YouTube’s views and discovery for “Bom Bom” over time.

Source: YouTube (2012).

Appendix 8: Last FM’s listening trend for “Bom Bom” over Time.

Source: LastFM (2012).

Appendix 9: Music TV Plays of “Bom Bom” by Sam And The Womp over Time.

Music TV Plays of "Bom Bom" by Sam And The Womp over Time

4Music Buzmuzik Channel AKA Chart Show TV Clubland TV Dance Nation TV Heat TV MTV Dance MTV Hits MTV Music Smash Hits TV Starz TV The Box VH1 Viva 700

600

500

400

300 Play Count

200

100

0 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 Week 16 Week 17 Week 18 Weeks Played (Calculated Sunday to Saturday)

Source: Compiled from Appendix 2.

Appendix 10: Cross-Tabulated data table of respondent income Type by Time and Percentage of annual income from music.

Appendix 11: Cross-Tabulated graph of respondent income Type by Time.

Appendix 12: Cross-Tabulated data table of respondents overall income Type by Releases (in the last six months) and National Airplay.

Appendix 13: Cross-Tabulated data table of respondent’s most important promotional method by a coded open-ended explanation of choice.

Appendix 14: Cross-tabulated data table of most important platform choice against the reason for choosing (through open ended responses that have been coded).

Appendix 15: Cross-tabulated data table of most important platform choice against pre- coded responses for use and explanation (where respondents Strongly Agree/Agree)

Appendix 16: Cross-tabulated data table of most important platform choice against valued outcome and KPIs (where respondents Strongly Agree/Agree)

Appendix 17: Questionnaire Responses.

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109