OK Go is a band that has made their career as musicians from the success of their music videos. One video in particular, for the song “Here it Goes Again,” which I’m sure most in the class have seen or at least heard about, featured the band performing a dance on treadmills. What many do not know is that the band created the video themselves, “posted on the fledgling YouTube without EMI’s permission”, and relied on the viral power of the internet to allow the video to spread. This creative self-promotion was not only innovative, but highly successful, as the band generated the interest of tens of thousands of fans daily, and the video was viewed almost 50 million times.
In a recent New York Times article, Damian Kulash described this successful venture, but also highlighted some of the changes in the music industry that are stifling such creativity in marketing. This article points out two distinct issues that work together in a potentially harmful way: the inability of the music industry to adapt to change, and the stifling of artists’ attempts at creative campaigns. Record labels in the past have followed a well-established business model successfully, but the music industry is shifting, and the model appears to be unable to shift accordingly. In the music industry now, many labels are having financial problems and therefore trying to gain revenue from other sources. EMI saw the success of this viral video as an opportunity to create a new stream of revenue, and brokered a deal with YouTube, who agreed to pay a small amount of money for each stream, but because of the impossibility and unwillingness of blog sites and other websites who post such videos to broker a similar deal, the videos were banned from being embedded on any other blogs or websites.
EMI’s decision to not allow embedding of videos is but one example of labels’ knee-jerk reaction in response to decline in record sales and loss of revenue. Rather than recognize the long-term benefit from YouTube, record companies saw immediate opportunity for revenue. Short sighted decisions like this are now common in the music industry, and often prove to accomplish precisely the opposite of what they set out to, as obviously occurred when video views “dropped 90 percent”, and EMI only stood to gross a small amount. Clearly this is bad business, but these decisions have rippling effects beyond the labels’ thinning bottom line. A bottom line that the $5,400 that EMI possibly stands to gain from YouTube streams certainly can’t make up for. EMI has now just limited the availability and buzz of the band, which will lead to a decrease in record and merchandise sales, and concert attendance. Not only has EMI stifled the creativity of the band, but they have also used copyright law as a detriment to themselves. OK Go is a band of musicians that write songs and release records, but they have other creative outlets that have sustained them as a viable touring and recording act. Because of contracts and copyright law, EMI has the option to stifle that creativity, and unfortunately has done exactly that in this instance.
This issue has the potential to harm not only the executives who profit from the artists they represent, but also the future of music altogether. Traditionally, as long as band’s creativity and a label’s opportunity to profit converge, each coexists peacefully. More recently, however, labels have begun to show just how far behind the times their business model lies, and this article highlights one example of this. Bands have an understanding of their audience and an ability to connect with their fans in ways that record labels cannot. Artists’ creativity often extends further, than music and lyrics, and has to nowadays, as evidenced by OK Go’s video project. Stifling this creativity obviously does not benefit either artist or label.
In this course so far, we have learned about copyright in history and the digital era, and examined the effects of copyright owners’ attempts to enforce their rights for personal gain. Whether one believes that the scope of copyright is too broad and is being abused by copyright owners or not, this is certainly a case where the copyright owner validated their own rights, but lost a great deal in the process.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/20kulash.html
I am also posting a link to their new video, which has been getting a lot of attention recently and is, in my opinion, pretty brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w
Some Rights Reserved
OK Go makes me re-believe in the magic and democracy of the internet and youtube. Their videos prove that you don’t need to have a ton of money to shoot a video, but the necessary equipment and a clever idea. It was a very good example you used to show the downside to copyright law, that it actually inhibits an artist’s profitability by blocking new modes of technology and resisting change.
I took a look at their webiste after a link to one of their websites said their was a link to legally download the audio of the track, which in itself shows the genius in that business model… give them something free to draw them in, and then they may want to purchase something… With the ability to purchase almost anything online with a few clicks, this is just another example of how musicans and companies have better adapted to these new technologies and embraced the viral nature of the internet ––Anyways, on their website, they even encourage remixes to their music video “WTF” and provide the green screen footage to do so more easily. Its almost like an exchange of ideas and music, with the hopes that it will eventually lead to a profit either through wanting to purchase concert tickets, or more publicity which generally leads to more sales.
I don’t know if OKgo is still signed with EMI, (I’m assuming they are,) but it seems they have learned from their mistake you explain very well in your post, and trying new ideas to compensate for this. I just wonder if this is the band members idea or the company they are signed with.
I myself as a fan of Ok Go applaud their innovative moves to offer free music downloads as well as even encouraging remixes of their songs. You are correct in that times have changed and it is necessary for music artists to adapt to those changes. While it is understandable that EMI would want to profit from this, they are hindering creativity and potential new fans.
And thanks for sharing the link to their latest youtube video-it was quite brilliant!