Guest Post: Danielle Holke, Digital Media Consultant
When Napster, Limewire, Morpheus, et al ruled the web, record execs unanimously and very publicly cried foul. Simultaneously, these same boardroom bandits were quietly working behind the scenes – partnering with datamining companies to scour the P2P networks and gather learning on users’ behaviour. With the cocaine-fueled days of decision-making based on pure instinct long gone, record company folks were now using market research to help decide what single to release, when to release it, what track might make a good follow-up single, should they make a video, etc. A new tool in their arsenal, download patterns on filesharing networks could help predict future successes and more practically, it was the first time the label had some tangible proof that their regional marketing efforts were penetrating… maybe more people were downloading The Strokes in Atlanta because of a radio promotion or billboard campaign in the area or perhaps The Tragically Hip had a small pocket of fans in LA that could be catered too – you get it. Although far from scientific, they could now answer some of these question to some degree.
I worked at a label around the time this was all happening. It bothered me then and it still bothers me now. Although you might say datamining is a form of recouping and was within their rights because they were losing money to an activity that was illegal in the first place, it’s still indicative of a two-faced approach to doing business that has infected the music industry on almost every level. It represents the continuation of a long and tragic decline.
Take this recent story from the Wall Street Journal as an example: Web Piracy: The Enemy Within?:
When a track from a forthcoming album by hard-rock band Buckcherry leaked onto the Internet a few weeks ago, the Los Angeles quintet was quick to complain in a blog and a press release from their label, Warner Music Group Corp.’s Atlantic Records. Nonetheless, the band quickly released a music video for the song, “Too Drunk. . .”; radio stations around the U.S. began playing it, and within weeks the song entered the top 40 of two rock charts published by Billboard magazine.
Some fans sensed something fishy, however. Now, the main editor of an online filesharing blog called TorrentFreak.com says the leak actually came from a computer affiliated with the band’s own manager, Josh Klemme. The TorrentFreak editor, who goes by the name Ernesto Van Der Sar, asserts that the song was leaked online by a computer with an Internet protocol address that is the same as one associated with Mr. Klemme’s management company.
A person close to a filesharing Web site unaffiliated with TorrentFreak provided The Wall Street Journal independent information that appears to support Mr. Van Der Sar’s claim. This person confirmed the Internet protocol address of the computer that first sent “Too Drunk. . .” to filesharing networks in early July. Emails Mr. Klemme sent to the TorrentFreak blog originated at the same IP address, which in the email’s routing information carries the additional identifier “joshlaptop.”
I hope Buckcherry fires Mr. Laptop, although it’s likely too late – the damage is already done. This is foul play at its smelliest and it’s one of the many reasons why record companies are generally disliked – people don’t like to be lied to. Big surprise.
Music is not going away, not now and not tomorrow – it’s actually a very vibrant time for many. There are bands and musicians making perfectly sustainable livings from their music. Two pieces of advice to aspiring musicians: first, whether they download or pay, the fan is never the enemy; and second, if you feel you have to lie to convince people to listen to, buy or share your music – go back to school and fulfill that ancient dream of becoming a foot doctor.
Tweet This!
Print This Post
3 Responses to “Buckcherry Lies to Fans, Breaks Important Tenet of Radical Trust”
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
August 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Everyone keeps yapping about how bad this was for the band…yet the single dod hit top 40. Do you think Buckcherry “fans” give a crap about all of this? No.
You wanna complain about the “backfiring” of this – look, the manager released the song because he probably thinks it’s a good idea, because he “gets” it. The band also probably “gets” it and would have done so anyway. It’s the LABEL that doesn’t “get” it and released the negative pr. And of course the manager is going to deny it, ’cause it’s probably in a clause in his contract not to do so.
Quit talking about this “blunder”, because all you’re doing is giving Buckcherry even more buzz, which is what this game is all about anyway.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
@evolver
Nobody wants to be lied to, or manipulated. Saying that fans don’t give a crap is a stretch to say the least. The manager, the band, and the label are supposed to be a unified “team” – any rationalization for these types of actions is pretty weak IMHO.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Eric, you’re proving my point.
First, and a little off-topic, having a record in the top 40 doesn’t really matter anymore – it’s not a guarantee of sustainability or even sales for that matter.
So why lie? What’s the benefit in the longterm? You’re not gaining fans and you’re not necessarily going to make more money.
And definitely, you’re right, managers go against label wishes all the time – they must, otherwise nothing would get done. This is coming from someone who was told not to use social media for marketing because there was no channel to license our artists’ music. Sounds ridiculous now, but there was a time a few years back.
Eric, even if the situation happened the way you suggest it did, with all parties acting to protect their own interests, I stand by my assertion: “it’s still indicative of a two-faced approach to doing business that has infected the music industry on almost every level”.
The whole point of this post, if you want a sustainable career in music, radical trust applies to you. It’s crucial to be transparent in your actions because lying for a bit of fame now will not pay off in the long run.