TRUSTED SOURCES: How Facts Get In The Way Of A Great “Dying Music Biz” News Story.
I think I’ve really let down my readers.
How could I, the Duke of de-bunking, the Secretary of scam-outers, miss the biggest scam that allows most other scams to proceed?Well, all I can say is, sometimes you don’t see the forest through the trees.Focusing on the minutia we can forget the bigger issues that lay at the foundation of our vulnerability.
What am I talking about?The news.Is the news a scam?Well, when it’s agenda-driven PR disguised as news the answer is, yes.And when certain news articles are so well positioned with such a biased message that they can effect the choices you make in your career and the way you think about the future of music, then yes, you’re on my turf and I’m gonna bite back.
The scam of the day is a term used in journalism, “Trusted Source.”A news story relies on “facts” to build its point of view.Journalists are not required to be experts in anything except gathering facts and so, Trusted Sources give journalists the ability to write with authority.It’s for this reason that journalists have a love/hate relationship with many of their sources.They need the cooperation of the very people they are vetting.
S&P
The standard and practice for journalism used to be two independent Trusted Sources to confirm a single fact.Blogging, which is not technically journalism, but editorial/commentary, has no standard.And why should they?As you’ll read in a moment, even the New York Times, the “paper of record” doesn’t seem to care about facts when it comes to our industry. So why should gadflys, opinionists, bloggers and bloggests.
These days you can not go a single week without exposure to a story about the “dying music biz.”They are often backed by statistics like, “10% drop in sales this year,” “30% drop since 2004” etc, etc. Where are writers getting their “facts” from? Would it surprise you to find out that almost ALL MUSIC BIZ “facts” that you read about in today’s main-stream news come from just three Trusted Sources AND that all of these sources have a vested interest in misrepresentation of these facts?
No, it probably does not surprise you, but I think we need to put a spotlight on these Trusted Sources so that you can decide for yourself if they are worth trusting.
Indeed, I too have an agenda.My agenda is that with this article we put a bit of pressure on those singing the perils of the music business when reporting. Maybe, then we can get them to be a bit less complacent when assuming “facts”
Let’s drill down.
WIKI WORLD
A large percentage of the music biz Armageddon articles use Wikipedia as a Trusted Source for music biz data.
I have not done exhaustive surveys to confirm this “fact” as it would take years, but it’s not hard to see that it’s true because of the hyper links embedded in their blogs.(Anyone who can build a webpage can find them.) Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#2000s
What does Wiki say? “The downward trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future… this dramatic decline in revenue has caused large scale layoffs inside the industry, driven music retailers out of business (such as Tower Records) and forced record companies, record producers, studios, recording engineers and musicians to seek new business models.”
Really?
I could spend about 100 pages de-bunking just about every word of what Wiki has above, but that will have to wait for another article (or series of them.)
So where does Wikipedia get this “”downward trend” information?The link above uses only ONE source: Forrester Research.Who is Forrester Research?A market research firm whose clients are the tech-industry.They purchased Jupiter Communication in 2008.Jupiter was one of the first high-level internet research firms.Their clients are almost exclusively Silicon Valleyites..
To keep the Valley-people happy and keep their fees flowing, the god Forrester needs to please is the one that wants to hear that content companies are losing ground both legally and in public support.The net result, they hope, is that record companies yield and just give away all their content to create a “greater consumer experience.”
No record company, film/TV production company that I know of supports or hires Forrester Research to analyze their market data. (If I’m wrong on this I’d like to see proof or at least some form of testimony to the contrary.)
So in essence, although they do not see themselves in this position, Forrester has become a Ministry of Information/propaganda agent of the tech industry’s war on copyright holders.With Forrester as a Trusted Source content companies will always come off looking like luddite a-holes.
So much for the Wiki-source.
ECONOMIST – ECHOS
Many a main-stream journalist likes to mine data from the website of the conservative periodical, The Economist as a Trusted Source.The Economist has a high-income earning demographic.Most of their readership are investors and for the past ten years most of their readers have been investing in… tech stocks!!
Why this connection is not obvious to the writers who trust them as a source of “objective” data is a mystery. The articles about technology have out-paced all other subjects in The Economist’s archives, and not surprisingly so has tech related ad-revenue.So where does The Economist get their information?Get ready for this…
The Economist gets its statistics from the IFPI and the RIAA. (The IFPI is the international version of the RIAA.)
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12367225
If you’ve been on the Moses Supposes list for more than a year you know I’ve already written exhaustively about why one can not use the RIAA as a Trusted Source of un-biased record biz statistics.The short version is because they define “sales” as units shipped, not units actually passed through the entire retail process.
While it might seem that there is direct correlation between the two, there really isn’t, as was revealed in a much re-printed article I did a couple of years back. In it, SoundScan reported that sales were up while the RIAA reported that sales were down–for the same time period.
(Google “RIAA soundscan sales moses avalon” for roughly 3000 hits of this eye-opening article or just read it off of MusicDish directly. And for a review of why I don’t use the RIAA or the IFPI as a Trusted Source for “sales” data, go here. or watch this video below.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOR3Wm5Dn4A[/youtube]
Interestingly enough, The Economist only likes to take RIAA/IFPI data that deals with “declining sales” but it prefers to ignore the RIAA’s articles about artists’ rights.The net result is very one-sided reporting to an audience of people who enjoy learning about ISP market cap and prefer to ignore the plight of authors.
Shame on you Economist.You purport to be such fine journalists.But the real shame is upon those who use them as a Trusted Source and pass it off as “news.”
THE PAPER OF RECORD
A recent NY Times piece really got me boiling.Using data from all the usual Trusted Sources it tells the story of bands going the indi route and forgoing major labels.
While on the surface it suggests that bands are doing fine going this route, what it’s really saying is that majors are lost and have their heads up their asses to the point where they can’t even get bands to sign with them anymore.
Of course this is far from the truth.While signings have gone down as a result of the economy, the number of submissions hasn’t. (Roughly 10,000 a year per major.) Meanwhile, any single major sells more units than all indies combined. (Except EMI, which is barley a major anymore.)
Regardless, this article makes all the people who invested in (floundering) tech companies feel good about the deluge of litigation from the RIAA against their pet stocks and it coddles the companies buying the lion’s share of the Times’ advertising–computer and IT companies.
Great propaganda piece:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/technology/internet/22music.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
THE RIAA
So, since everyone trusts the RIAA/IFPI, where do they get their information?Not sure.We hope record companies report to them honestly, but they are not legally required to tell them the truth.Only what they want the public to know. Why would they want the public to think that the industry is in bad shape?Lots of great reasons that I’ve covered in other articles. Even Wikipedia doubts their veracity. And if Wiki says it…
I hope that this article helps everyone who invests emotionally in these doom-and-gloom pieces to realize that they are not reading first rate journalism, but merely commentary on the opinions of people with an agenda—mostly the RIAA/tech-industry agenda.
Reporting from the front so you don’t take it in the rear,
Moses Avalon
I believe the RIAA might as well be the UAW under Jimmy Hoffa!
trusted media? google “operation mockingbird” to see how the media has been manipulated for a long time by the powers that be, or read “Mockingbird: the Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA”; Bernstein also reported on 400 reporters being on the spook payroll: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
Wikipedia entries are written by those motivated to do so. Why don’t you change the Wikipedia entries you disagree with?
So, you’re suggesting that since I think Wiki is wrong I change it so that it’s a beter “Tursted Source.”?
Well, I have better things to do with my time than police Wiki. For a “Realist” you’ve missed my point. I’m not Wiki moderator, nor do I wish to me. I just don’t think journalists should be quoting it as “trusted.” And BTW– It’s sort of a myth that anybody can author Wiki. Sure if you have an account you can make a change, but there are page moderators that are alerted when a change is made. If they disagree with your addition, it’s redacted.
Excellent coverage Moses-highligting the “truth” that there are many waging the war in the battle for men’s (as well as consumer’s) minds.
STILL NO MONKEYS AT A TYPEWRITER, ALAS, YOU STILL NEED CONTENT CREATORS AND PERFORMERS (TALENT)
There is an overload of low-cost, niche market entertainment options (t.v., internet, movies, etc.). With the writers’ strike, the writerless reality shows filled the breech. A lower-cost fix.
In music, the good songs and good artists are the Talent that can’t be found in the same way as reality show participants. Branding music artists is expensive and imprecise.
It’s still the songs and artists that break through that succeed and make the money. With all the do-it-yourself technology, lawyers, managers, producers, recording studios, publicists and labels do not get to deduct their fees up-front from all of the struggling artists who never become known. The deductions from the nine tenths of the artists who never broke through are not there to sustain all of the the layers of the music industry. Which journalists would write or read this sob story over and over?
Selective data presentation by chamber of commerce-type boosters is nothing new. It’s all about increasing profits for whomever is issuing the press releases (RIAA Certified Gold!, Grammy Nominee! SoundScanm Number One Seller!, ETC.)
You have to always consider the source of the information. And, as ever, if you want a career in music 1) go to law school, or 2) write great songs.
Excellent! You are now officially back! Very concise, clear and to the point and with links to boot. Even though the Economist, NYT and Wikipedia are my favorites sources of info, and will continue to be on most other topics, I’m glad you elucidated the shady relationship the media entertain with the IT giants. It begs the question however, why are the majors having the RIAA sue all the pirates, and do not have it go after the tech companies instead.
To transpose from past history, the labels are like the ancient American civilizations from which the new kings of Europe (the Tech companies) would pirate all riches and precious cultural artifacts. In this scenario, those history still identifies as “pirates” (those rock’n'roll rebels lurking in the Caribbean) are today on trial for pirating (ie, diverting the loot). The only twist is today’s Kings don’t want the cultural loot for themselves, they’re using it as a means of infusing “soul” into their lifeless machines, so as to make the machines the repositing container for the content.
Culturally and musically, this battle pains and disgusts me. Anthropologically, it’s fascinating, particularly if you substitute music for content, and vinyl, tape, cassettes and CDs for containers. A quick study of Copyright law and its history in the US vs its historical development in Europe shows that this content vs container battle has been raging for well over a century now and only the generals and country names have changed.
—It begs the question however, why are the majors having the RIAA sue all the pirates, and do not have it go after the tech companies instead.—
ISPs enjoy a “safe harbor” exemption written into the law. One they abuse with extreme prejudice.
I’d like to add the suggestion that tech companies have more lawyers than pirates – would love to hear more about this ‘safe harbour’ clause. I can see how that would protect the ISPs, but it doesn’t extend to software, does it? Has anyone tried to argue that a company who develops a file sharing tool that is clearly intended for the piracy market, is civilly or even criminally liable?
As for a successful career in music, I think it’s ironic that most people would think about developing a new ring tone converter before they picked up an instrument. That alone exposes what I think could be the real iceberg that sinks the ship – people’s underlying motivations. The first folk who got paid doing it were laughing that they could make as much as in the mine or the factory – now it’s all about elevating one’s socio-economic status.
For instance, it’s hardly lost on many people that it’s more profitable to write a “How To” book about being an ‘Indie’ band than actually being one.
When it gets to the point that ten groups who read that book are paying $100 each to compete in a ‘Battle Of The Bands’ contest, I’d wonder if you’d be looking at a dying cultural phenomenon, not an emerging one.
Which brings me to my Free Tip Of The Day : This Week Only, I’ll Critique Your Song For Only $75.00!!
Back in the day, I had a client that religiously paid thousands for the Jupiter tech reports. They were mostly Microsoft biased and full of BS.
I eventually checked the tag lines and found the majority had “Copyright Microsoft” at the end of each report. That’s right, Microsoft was writing the impartial tech reports that Jupiter was selling.
I don’t know if they still do that or whether Forrester has “cleaned
them up”.
Mr. Avalon,
I’m currently in law school cultivating dreams of becoming an entertainment attorney. I’ve been a huge fan of your books and now your blogs. Thanks for keeping me in touch with what I want to do with my life and reminding me as to why I’m putting myself through Hell to achieve it.
My only comment in reply to your latest masterpiece is that on the draft of my most recent seminar paper re The Music Biz, my professor asked why I did not provide more cited sources. Luckily, you had just released this article and so I simply forwarded it to my professor as my one and only entry on a ‘Works Cited’ page.
Don’t worry, it’s a Pass/Fail class…
Good. And if your professor has not heard of me, get a new school. (smiles)
counting records shipped is just plain BS–record companies pay artists on records sold and they hold back payments to compensate for returns–the only way to find out true sales figures is to force an audit–I’v actually had more returns than the initial shipment–I’m sure I am NOT the only producer/engineer in exactly tha SAME situation! I believe corruption is rampant across all segments of US goverment and media–and I can prove it!! Try Me!!
Mo, deep in my heart, I’m wishing that Wiki is not a source used by “journalists” and others. Hell, most high school teachers won’t even let you use Wiki as a source for research papers. Also, without a legal requirement for record companies to report accurately, we get the “garbage-in-garbage-out” conundrum.
I have always been skeptical of the dismal numbers because if there was indeed a real “gloom and doom” scenario: who bought and who benefitted from the 9 million CDs sold since MJ’s death? Who bought the 4.5 million copies of the new Black Eyed Peas CD? Lady Gaga sold 3.1 million, and Miley Cyrus has outsold her father with 10 million total copies sold. These aren’t the old farts like you and me out buying these records. These are high tech kids still buying CDs.
There’s never any “gloom and doom” when kids are out still buying CDs.
Its not just the music biz but the feeling grows tha these days problems grown on the fact that we the people believe in “the news”.
The media seems to be the big platform to sway mass opinions, to sell and em put blinders on and to write history the way they like it. Its all like “if its in the BIG BIG media it must be true” and I’m torn: should I try to sift chaff from the wheat or just bypass those lost highways and memory lanes and instead maybe just go and explore the unknown in the bloody backyards.
“Dont believe the hype.” can anybody tell me what time it is???
I think your anser is clear: if you’re asking the question of should you trust the media, then you already no longer do.