Tag: interactivity

Livestreaming and the horseless carriage syndrome

Posted on | by Maarten Walraven-Freeling

Livestreaming is a concert without an audience in proximity to the musicians. Marshall McLuhan, in his seminal Understanding Media, argued that humans share an ineptitude in understanding the nature and the effects of new technologies. We cannot help but view these technologies as a new form of an old technology we’ve become accustomed to. McLuhan called this the horseless carriage syndrome, because he used the example of the first cars and how people perceived them. In the late 19th-Century people saw automobiles simply as horseless carriages. Moreover, the first cars looked like horseless carriages with the driver at the front on top. Similarly, TV was first seen as radio with moving pictures. And now livestreams are viewed as concerts without an audience. The problem, according to McLuhan, is that we place too much emphasis on the content whereas the medium is actually what matters more. In other words, we should focus on the potential of a new technology and how it can affect change in the way we think and act in the world. Let’s explore what it means to imagine livestreams not as concerts without in-person audiences, but instead as a new medium with its own specific affective capabilities. Furthermore, this medium requires its own language and marketing.

Approaching a new medium in terms of its predecessors

Cherie Hu has just written an excellent piece confronting us all with the disconnect between the hype for livestreaming we’ve seen during the pandemic and the demand that now exists for them. She calls for a “much-needed reality check about the viability of the format as a standalone business model for concerts.” And there lies the horseless carriage syndrome. Hu critiques the fact that people within the industry have put a total addressable market (TAM) up for livestreams that is bigger than that for concerts. That TAM comes from the basic notion that a livestream is a concert for people who cannot attend the in-person gig due to geographic constrictions. It’s a good sell, but in Hu’s words, we’re better off talking about a “total unaddressable market” in that case.

The idea of viewing livestreaming, and its potential, in terms of how much people want to attend an in-person gig also comes back in recent M&A examples. When Live Nation acquired Veeps, they did so because they want to equip the venues they operate for livestreaming. The thinking behind that is that it will increase the scope, the TAM, for those concerts. In the words of Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino,

“this business is a compliment and promotion to the core concert … we’ll be streaming a lot more of our concerts to fans that can’t show up to the event, or some that may want to stream on our app when they’re at the event because of some added value of digital backrooms or camera angles … Looking to the future live streams will continue to unlock access for fans – whether they are tuning into a sold out show in their hometown, or watching their favorite artist play in a city halfway around the world. The most critical element of live streaming is the artist on stage.

Again and again in this quote we see Rapino likening the livestream to the concert. He thus keeps the concert, Live Nation’s core business, the core of the fan experience. He even goes so far as to say that the artist on stage is the most critical element of any livestream. Of course, he also hints at what differentiates the livestream as a medium from a concert. For example, he mentions the variety of camera angles or backstage access. In other words, there’s levels of interactivity of intimacy connected to livestreaming that differ wildly from the in-person concert. The latter gives a fan experience centred around a shared feeling of energy-exchange between fan and artist. The simple fact of having multiple bodies in one room creates a shared energy unequal to anything else.

Moving to the virtual

What’s interesting is that even people who are heavily invested in changing the narratives around the horseless carriage of livestreaming fall into its trap. Jon Vlassopulos, global head of music at Roblox, still talks about the metaverse as “an infinite venue.” To be fair, he also reframes the livestream outside of the concert-terminology:

“They’re a unique, creative and novel way for them to express themselves and their music and engage with their fans in a hyper-immersive, social setting.”

For Vlassopulos this also means that the TAM for these livestreams, or virtual in-game events, are endless. And that’s the kind of horseless carriage comparison that Hu is trying to steer away from. She, helpfully, points out that just making virtual shows more engaging isn’t necessarily going to translate into more engagement. Vlassopulos, in contract, tries to sell the idea of a concert in Roblox as a way for artists to reach as many people in one go as they can do with an 18-month world tour. But we shouldn’t be comparing those two things. They’re separate and we need to start thinking about them as such.

Let’s drive a car

One way of thinking about livestreaming as separate from in-person concerts is to look at the medium and its distribution. I’ve written previously about a ‘waterfall strategy’ for livestreams [paywall]. In that piece I also reach back to McLuhan and his notion of ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ media. The former is high-fidelity and low-participation, while the latter is low-fidelity and high-participation. In terms of livestreams I called the type of quick-and-dirty Twitch or Instagram livestreams cool media while the highly produced efforts of a BTS, Billie Eilish, and Dua Lipa were hot media. Of course, the first two of those did a great job of including more interactive elements that showed the potential of livestreams as a medium. However, only the latter focused on distribution after the original livestream date. The medium of the livestream, especially, lends itself to this type of continued engagement. It should, then, be a focus from the moment of inception.

In terms of McLuhan, what really affects us in a concert is that the medium allows us to feel the energy of loud music and other bodies moving in unison. And what really affects us in a livestream comes from a feeling of intimacy with the artist, a moment of interactivity between artist and fan(s), and a close-up way to watch a musician in action. Moreover, any good livestream will not simply point cameras at musicians, but use the function of the camera, its angles and the way it can direct viewing. Jeff Daniels, who besides being a great actor is also a singer-songwriter, has some great insights in how this works:

“[I]t’s got to hit them different, these live streams. I’ve seen some artists go on the Ryman stage or wherever and they try the light show and the whole thing, and it’s everything except the audience. Instead of trying to give them something that it isn’t, is there something that that doesn’t do? That’s what I’ve tried to figure out with the live stream. It’s like shooting a medium close-up when you’re film acting. And if you’ve got a floating camera like we do — our third camera kind of moves in and out — that’s bringing the audience in. You’re showing them where to focus. It’s like the difference between movies and theater. Theater you sit in the audience and you’ve gotta be the editor. You have to look over there, or cut to him. You’re the one turning your head. In movies, we do that for you. We cut to her, or to the car.”

That, in a nutshell, is how the medium of the livestream changes the consumption of the content – music – from an in-person concert. In other words, we need to start thinking about livestreaming as a medium starting with a camera, with an image.

Let’s get others to drive along

So, if you think about livestreaming like Daniels does you need to find musicians who can play in front of a camera. That means they need to pull in the viewers one by one and give them all the feeling they’re playing specifically for them. But before that connection can take place, fans need to be convinced to buy a ticket and watch the livestream in the first place. If anything should be taken away from Hu’s piece it’s that telling people that a livestream is an online concert isn’t going to work. Instead communication around livestreams should focus on what makes it unique. A year ago, Bas wrote a great piece showcasing 8 generatives that can help livestreams or virtual music shows stand out from real-life experiences.

In your communication and promotion for a livestream, then, focus on what makes this medium unique.

  • Intimacy
  • Interactivity
  • Storytelling elements
  • The feeling of someone playing just for you, as a fan
  • Ideally, the livestream should really be live. Messaging should then focus on that ‘live live’ element
  • It’s a unique experience that’s unlike any other way to experience music

Wrapping up: a new art form

My conclusion here is short. Livestreaming is a new art form and expressions of it should reflect that. Use the medium of livestreaming and the cameras to bring out the creative vision of artists. Push for producers and musicians alike to bring out the art of the livestream. Moving forward we’ll see more and more creative interpretations of this art form. In parallel to that, communication around livestream should reflect that. The use cases and the marketing should help amplify getting broader audiences on board with the unique medium of livestreaming.

Livestream monetization strategies, or what we can learn from Inter Miami CF

Posted on | by Maarten Walraven-Freeling

How we monetize fandom in an increasingly online world is a question that doesn’t just exist in music, but also in sports. As such we can learn from each other. Brand new American football club Inter Miami just launched a video strategy that is all about engagement. Let’s see what they’re doing, how they do it, and what it means for those monetization strategies. But first

Some background into US sports on TV

In the US, sports on TV is having a hard time of it. Its ratings having been decreasing for years with a hard slump during the pandemic. Taking the Major League Baseball as a quick example this is what that decline looks like:

Taken from sportsnaut

There are some signs that viewership for sports in the US will stabilize and, as The Hollywood Reporter recently reported, TV networks on the one hand have too much money – roughly $140 billion – invested in sports over the course of the next 10 years. On the other hand, shrinking overall TV subscribers may make sports’ appointment viewing even more valuable. At the same time, shifting audiences will require changes in how live sports will be offered. There are already some examples that try to incorporate other franchises, such as Star Wars or Marvel, into the live broadcast. But other experiments are more interesting to analyse from a music perspective.

The Inter Miami case

A totally new football club dreamed up by David Beckham, perhaps it’s not strange that they also think about branding like Beckham. Last week, the club released an app, which they dub ‘an immersive fan video engagement experience.‘

What fans get

  • Watch Party, viewing with up to 8 people
  • Live chat, with co-viewers
  • Real-time stats, directly on screen
  • Social engagement, focuses on being to share and like while staying with the live video of the game

Many of these elements resemble things that already exist in other live video spaces such as games like Fortnite, streaming services like Twitch, and SVOD services like Disney+. While I’m most excited about the watch party integration, it’s actually the combination of elements that music should look at when it comes to livestreaming, the total package that will help fuel a collective watching experience. This type of live and simulaneous watching is also YouTube‘s number one highlight from their recent Culture and Trends Report.

Inter Miami partnered with a company called StreamLayer on the app. Just last summer, they raised $4 million and their unique selling point is that they create overlays on any video stream. Their first focus is on mobile, because “the proclivity on mobile to interact is just dramatically higher,” as Head of Product Strategy Tim Ganschow told Forbes. The next step will focus on connected, or smart, TVs, which is also an exciting space for music.

Monetization strategies

Interaction and engagement are the key elements of this new football viewing experience. Those are two elements that musicians on Twitch or StageIt, for example, have also learned to utilize and control. However, the watch party element is something that can come in and make a big change for music livestreaming, especially when it comes to monetization. There could be, for example, ‘normal’ tickets, but also ‘watch-party’ tickets that allow you to set up a room with up to 8 friends. This wouldn’t be too dissimilar to group tickets for festivals.

Besides thinking about bringing in extra revenues through a variety of tickets, there are many more possibilities. Overlays present opportunities to show sponsors in a livestream without the need to cut out the live video. Or, it’s possible to do direct merch calls directly related to what’s happening in the livestream. Of course, the livestream itself would need to be unique and different to create interesting moments to print on a t-shirt or mint into an NFT and, most importantly, to warrant interest from fans.

In sum

We need to keep thinking about new ways to create more interactive and engaging livestreams. One way to do so is to look at what others do and develop. Just like StreamLayer looked at Twitch and tried to bring more engagement into sports livestreaming, so musicians, managers, labels, venues, and platforms can look at Inter Miami’s app and copy the watch party. Moreover, these types of developments will continue to give livestreaming a differentiating edge against in-person concerts. Novel ways to connect, interact and engage with fellow fans will be one way to keep people at home with their screen instead of in a venue or at a festival.

The future of music, inspired by a cheap Vietnamese restaurant in Berlin

Posted on | by Bas Grasmayer

I spent the last week living from an Airbnb while getting started with my new job at IDAGIO in Berlin. Down the street from my Airbnb was a cheap Vietnamese place, where I ate a couple of times. They always had Vietnamese pop music on, but one day they had a CD by a Vietnamese singer covering Western pop songs. In English. I thought about it for a little: why wouldn’t they just play the originals?

These cover releases are often financially motivated, but since the restaurant has to pay some collection society, and a Spotify subscription gives you all the music for just $10, I figured that the reason for this music playing was probably not something financial.

I then wondered: could it be that they simply have more of a connection to the Vietnamese performer, and prefer to hear these works from his mouth?

I’ve been getting into a new way of thinking about music by stepping into classical. Suddenly, there’s not 1 original and then some ‘lesser’ remixes and covers. There’s a composition, with the author of that work often having deceased before modern recording technology, and then there are countless recordings of performances of that work. Sometimes there’s an relatively undisputed ‘best’, but often it comes down to personal taste, preference, and opinion.

IDAGIO screenshot

In the last century, music went through an enormous change. It went from ‘folk’ to ‘pop’. Here’s what I mean with each phrase:

  • Folk: music that’s not ‘owned’ by a single individual or corporation, but rather by the culture in which it was born. A song is not necessarily known for a particular performer, but instead is performed by many performers: ones that reach success far and wide, as well as local performers who just like to sing in front of a crowd in evenings or weekends.
  • Pop: music that’s controlled and owned. Songs are known for their original version and original performers. In this sense, the meaning extends beyond the charts, and into modern day underground rock, metal, and to a certain extent hiphop and dance music.

Recording technology in the 20th century brought about a transition: where once music was ‘folk’ by default, it became ‘pop’ instead. The rise of mass consumerism and cheap global distribution decreased the amount of time a song needed to spread geographically. These was now also a default version through which basically everyone became familiar with the work, rather than through their local performer or traveling bands.

While this system has generated a vast amount of money, and a huge music economy, I also think that music as an experience has lost a lot through this. People’s relationships with works are more superficial and performers are less incentivized to be the best performer of a certain work, since they can basically be the only one.

Back to the Vietnamese restaurant.

I got to thinking: what if we can ‘folk-ify’ modern pop music. It’s already being done to a certain extent. The remix culture on Soundcloud is a great example of it, and so is the cover culture on YouTube. What if the way we’re structuring the navigation in content on IDAGIO (such as: composers > works > recordings and performers) some day could become relevant for ‘pop’?

It would mean people would be able to browse based on songwriter, and then see all the pop songs related to that writer. They’d then be able to explore each song, and all the performances of it. They could sort by proximity: either offline (geographic), or online (based on your social graph and digital footprint). This could make the performance they listen to more personally relevant, just like the CD in the Vietnamese restaurant is to the owners of the restaurant.

It could make music more participative, and in a way it already is becoming so: YouTube, Soundcloud, remix apps, democratization of production tools, cheap hardware for recording (like our phones), Musical.ly, performances on livestream… The two most remix-heavy genres we know, dance and hiphop, are the ones most influential to the millennial demographic and younger. Both house and hiphop were born of affordable drum computers and samplers, of looping existing records, reinterpreting them, creating a new performance out of something that already existed.

The hard part has always been incentivizing the rights holders. Just look at the lawsuits.

We’re reaching an interesting time: we’re getting very good at interpreting really large datasets. Machine learning and AI are set to revolutionize our every day existence in just a few years. Then there’s blockchain, which is a good technology for tracking the complexity involved with a very nested type of ownership if we indeed ‘folk-ify’ pop music (without radically overhauling modern notions of intellectual property).

Music doesn’t have to become more participative, but it can. I think there’s a good economic case for it, but it still needs to be the product of deliberate choice of individuals. People in government can look at funding music education, and modernizing it, because the computer is the most important instrument for our generation (I know some of you will strongly disagree: find me at Midem, Sonár+D, or c/o pop and we can discuss over a beer). Musicians can think of how they can invite fans to contribute or interact with their music. People with entrepreneurial mindsets can think about solving some of the issues related to rights, or look at how musicians can monetize this type of interactivity.

And we all, as listeners, simply need to do one thing more often: sing.