Twitter Tuesday: Comparison of the “Big 3” record companies

Last week Warner Bros. Records were on stage for Twitter Tuesday. WBR is a daughter company with Warner Music, one of the “Big Thre” largest record labels. The three labels that hold the largest market share in the music industry are Warner Music, Universal Music Group, Sony Music. The past decade has seen the downfall or merging of multiple major record labels. Recently, EMI was sold and became a part of Universal Records. Now that only 3 major record labels remain standing, let’s see how they’re taking on the battle of social media.

Below we’ll take a brief look at each of the labels and then do a round up and comparison.

Warner Music is the only American owned group on the list. Of the three big companies they also have the fewest number of followers. Granted, they own a smaller portion of the industry than the others, but does their approach to tweeting have an affect on their fanbase? While Warner Bros. Records had personality in their tweets with the occasional retweet to promote an artist, Warner Music is nearly zero voice and all retweets. Of their last 40 tweets, 39 have been retweets. All of it is relevant information, whether it be an artist talking about an upcoming event or a music publication commending someone. Although Warner Music’s personal tweets are seldom, they retweet posts from branches of their company such as Warner Bros. Records, The Warner Sound and Warner Bros. Promo.

When they do tweet it’s usually either congratulating a member of their label for something or asking followers to “check out” something new.

Their lack of original content makes it difficult for their brand and profile to be promoted. People wanting an aggregate of other sources may still get something out of this profile, but as for news and insights, they don’t add much.

Sony Music is second in market share, but number one in Twitter reach. With over 300,000 followers, Sony boasts nearly 100,000 more followers than Universal. Their take on Twitter is very contrasting to Warner Music Group, yet similar to Warner Bros. Records. They utilize a highly informational, yet personal voice. Instead of running info like a scrolling banner on a message board, Sony’s tweets are talking at their followers. Instead of posting newspaper clippings of what others are saying about their clients, they are the ones plugging and reinforcing them. There are actually hardly any retweets. They stick to trying to engage readers with the content by stimulating the conversations with relevant information and semi-rhetorical questions.

Although they don’t respond to followers and they hardly ever retweet posts, Sony Music has a strong group of followers. This can probably be thanks to their smooth promotions, which pass viewers on to a new video or song premiere without them relying on someone else’s tweets.

Universal Music Group is the leader in major record labels. In 2012 they swallowed up (or the more technical term “merged”) EMI, reducing the “Big 4” to the “Big 3”. They may not have as many followers as Sony, but a look at their timeline doesn’t show anything that would indicate a poor job with social media. If anything, their balance of professional and personal, and original and retweeted content is a perfect blend. Everything about their profile is fun and engaging. From their collage of album covers as a background (which is similar to Warner Music’s) to their integration of Vine, Universal isn’t afraid to step out of the “suit & tie” formal atmosphere. They wish people happy birthday, redirect you to sales and host free giveaways of concerts and music. Colorful is a good word to describe this Twitter feed. Not all of their tweets are black and white advertisements for their artists. Almost all of them link to a musician on the label, but some are more acknowledgement than promotion.

Round Up

I’ve said it before, and I’ll reiterate: Twitter followers don’t directly indicate how “good” or “bad” a company is doing. With that said, it does say how people react to that company’s social media use. Twitter serves as a place for people who don’t have the time or desire to browse the web for full length blogs to scroll through and discover new info and be plugged into a network. With more and more people spending their days on Twitter, it is becoming a valuable means to relay information and brand yourself. The cool thing about it as well is that there aren’t any set rules for how to Tweet. The “Big 3” all take different approaches at gaining followers. And while Warner is getting the least involvement, it isn’t drastically behind Sony and Universal, considering the share of the market each group holds. Maybe it just comes down to who likes one group’s artists more than the others, and that will indicate a larger reception for social media use. If there is one universal thing that can be said from all seemingly “successful” Twitter users, it’s that people like getting info (normally from the actual poster) and interaction. Followers yearn for information. That’s why they follow music label Twitters, not for shocking dance moves and racy comments. They also like to know they they are noticed, which is why things like Q&A’s, contests and questions catch people’s attention.

Which of these three record labels are the “best” at using Twitter? That’s subjective. Universal brings a fun, no holds barred vibe, Warner leans on other’s posts as the primary source for content, and Sony goes a more tame, composed form of posting information.

Does one look better than the other? Let me know in the comments below!

Concerts in the Cloud Part 2

Last week I looked at the effectiveness and ethics of concert attendees recording and uploading live footage to the internet. The consensus on the internet seems to be weighted on the side of it being more harm than good. Despite promotional uses, people waving their phones around at a concert takes away too much from the experience and ultimately harms all parties involved.

This week I want to move on to a different form of “concerts in the clouds”. While it is easy to hate on the people recording performances on their phone during concerts, what can be said when artists or venues live stream and upload concerts? It’s a similar crime with a different perpetrator. But is it really a crime? Many services and sites exist that bring live performances to online viewers. Not only does it capture an intimate concert experience and extend it to the cloud, but it does so often in its entirety. Some sites offer thousands of concerts available for viewing for a subscription-based membership. Should this be a cause of concern for reasons stated from last week? Or is this a new breed entirely? Do people look down on this or is it more accepted? Below is a video about IRocke, a massive concert streaming services that spans countless venues and artists.

The fact that there are so many concert streaming services indicates that it must be at least partially accepted by the music industry. Concert Window, a streaming service based out of New York, is ran by “musicians, music lovers and tech enthusiasts.” IRocke is another extensive concert streaming site, with both of its founders being involved in the entertainment industry (one was involved with MCA/Universal and the other a venue owner). These are bound to not be the only examples of streaming services being handled by members of the music industry. Also, a majority of the streaming services work directly with the acts that they stream, giving them a portion of revenue earned. With venue owners, artists and other personalities involved in the creation and running of these sites, there isn’t too much of an ongoing conversation about whether it’s “wrong” or “right”.
The main objection that can be found on the matter is that streaming high definition concerts will deter people from going through the hassle of buying a ticket and physically attending the show. Sure, people are still paying some amount to view the stream, but they aren’t physically present to add to the experience and intimacy of a concert. A concert on a computer, phone or TV screen is less dimensional than actually being surrounded by the loud, energetic atmosphere of a show.
Despite the concern of losing potential physical concert goers, many venue owners and musicians see concert streaming as a way of promotion and expanding their reach. Forbes’ calls it a, “nice additive to the concert-going experience.” Alex Pham of Billboard says in a USA Today article that it doesn’t harm ticket sales, but, “drum(s) up excitement for the events.”
The video below features Nic Adler from the Roxy Theatre commending the use of streaming concerts, as well as connecting concerts to social media to help better future performances.

The ethical landscape for professional concert streaming seems to be getting a nearly unanimous thumbs up. Beyond ethics, it is almost indisputable that streaming has effectively helped bands and musicians with promotion and branding. This infographic, featured in the aforementioned Forbes article, displays the huge reach of streaming, as well as the continued growth in ticket sales revenue for festivals that are generally broadcast online.
I think Forbes summarizes the music industry’s use of streaming the best by saying,
“In the past five years, music festival and concert producers have quickly adopted live streaming as a surefire way to increase social media engagement, attract more advertisers, strengthen brands, and ultimately grow revenue.”
It may seem interesting, the contrast of opinion between fans uploading and streaming concerts and concert producers and sites doing the same thing. In summary, the distinction can maybe be put like this.
Concert goers streaming performances
  • Distracts performer and other attendees
  • Often poor quality
  • Detracts from the user’s personal experience

Sites and services streaming performances

  • Always have artists’ consent
  • Artists’ generally make some form of profit from streaming
  • High quality
  • Beneficial to the promotion and branding of artists

Did I miss anything? Let me know in the comments below.

Thanks for reading.

Twitter Tuesday: Warner Bros. Records

The social networking world is normally head over heels obsessed with celebrities’ every little move, including what they tweet. Popular artists will gain hundreds of thousands of followers and people will over scrutinize what they say to the smallest punctuation mark. It’s these same musicians that are fun to analyze and do Twitter Tuesdays on. This week, we’re going to look at the music industry’s use of Twitter from a slightly different standpoint. Warner Bros. Records is one of the largest record companies in the United States. They boast some of the biggest musicians on the scene. From alt-metal masters Avenged Sevenfold to classy jazzy pop artist Michael Bublé, Warner Bros. spans the spectrum of genres. Having political punk rock (Green Day) and Cher on the same label seems crazy, but alas Warner Bros. proudly claim both.

So what does their use of Twitter look like? Is there an obvious lack of personality because it is a collective rather than an individual?

It is apparent by the lack of emotion fueled banter that they don’t try to be anything other than what they are. At the same time, however, there is some sort of personality to the tweets.

Even Warner Bros. can appreciate the end of the week.

Take tweets where the record company asks followers for their input about a who’s tuning into a certain event, or tweets asking people to “check out” or “tune in”, and it doesn’t look much different than what a celebrity’s personal Twitter would tweet.

Although  most of the questions asked are basically rhetorical, by them throwing the questions out at all encourages followers to respond.

Apart from questions, there is still a fun and playful voice. For instance, they, like the rest of the YouTube and internet society, can’t help but talk about what the fox says.

Through light hearted Tweets about Ylvis’s big hit and questions that are really directing readers to a bigger conversation, Warner Bros focuses on one thing, and basically one thing only: promotion. They don’t spam the same link over and over, and they don’t tweet about all of their artists’ new albums, shows and interviews, that would be too much to bear. How they select what interviews and music videos to tweet about I’m not quite sure, but they spread their love. And if they aren’t directly tweeting about an artist, they retweet their artists’ tweets left and right. In fact, Twtrland says about 53% of Warner Bros. tweets are retweets. It reminds me of that proud grandma that tells everyone about how great her grandkids are and she puts all of the newspaper clippings with their names on the fridge. Warner Bros. is great about retweeting relevant information.

The following tweets were all retweeted by Warner Bros. Records.

Warner Bros. may run a very professional, yet fun timeline, but does it make a difference? Do people care about what a company says when they could follow their favorite musicians personally? The majority of Tweets from Warner Bros. mentioning an artist tag the artist’s personal Twitter handle. It’s easy for people wanting Tegan & Sara or Lily Allen’s latest updates to just follow the account of the artist themselves.

This profile has 163,000 followers, which is a significant amount, but compared to the artists they’re representing it is a tiny fraction of people reading their tweets. Do they succeed at anything that wouldn’t happen without their Twitter? I think the answer is yes. Their fan base isn’t going to be catered to the same as Jason DeRulo’s or the Black Keys. Warner Bros. is a major record label, and people that want to know about major happenings in the music industry will have an interest in Warner Bros.’ Twitter. A look at other prominent record companies shows interesting data. Primarily hardcore record label Rise Records has over 187,000 followers, and Island Records and Def Jam Records each boast over 400,000. According to this USA Today article, Warner Bros. holds a significantly higher portion of the market than the other three record companies. So there must be something else contributing to the lack of reception in an otherwise good looking Twitter feed of Warner Bros. Records.
Check back next Twitter Tuesday for a comparison of different record companies.
Thanks for reading.

Concerts in the cloud part 1

Photo: Henrik Sorensen / Getty Images

Photo: Henrik Sorensen / Getty Images

This is the first of a two part series entitled “Concerts in the cloud”. The series looks at the effectiveness and ethics of connecting live performances to the internet. As far as mass communication goes, there is nothing more broad and reaching than the collective known as “the internet”. With that said, are certain important values of live performance lost in the transmission from live to digital? Part one breaks down the ethics and aid of fans self recording segments of a concert, and then uploading it to the digital cloud of YouTube, Facebook, etc.

Let’s face it, most of the concert-going crowd today almost always have a smart phone glued to their palm. Just like any other outing, people see concerts as something that needs to be Tweeted, Instagrammed, Facebooked and captured by pictures and videos, lest it be forgotten. It is almost as if people believe that if no one sees or hears that they went to a concert, then it never happened. That may contribute to the sea of camera flashes and social media updates that occur at any given point during a concert. And while recording video is the most tangible and multimedia means of immortalizing a concert experience, live tweeting the band’s every move can also greatly add or take away from the performance. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Are there advantages to documenting concert going experiences with YouTube uploads and an abundance of pictures? Some vehemently oppose the glowing screens plaguing the sea of attendees, while some offer tips on how to do it better!

First we can talk about the upsides to connecting a live performance to the digital world. A reported 64% of teenagers discover new music from YouTube. Although this statistic doesn’t say what amount of music are fan-recorded videos of live performances, the fact that over half of teenagers lean on YouTube to discover music is telling. According to this infographic from Forbes, 72 hours of video are uploaded to the internet every minute. Even if a small percentage of that number is concert footage, that is still a staggering amount.

YouTube is artist friendly with their suggestive sidebars, so it is easy to go from one performance to the next, even if you’ve never heard of the band. This type of promotion is nearly unparalleled. On paper, seeing the amount of music that is reaching potential fans sounds great. Apart from YouTube, updates on social networks about what concert you’re attending can be very useful. One of the biggest goals of any musician is to generate a conversation among a community of people. Letting all of you friends and followers know how excited you are to go see ____ gets their name and image out there.

Additionally, for avid fans of a certain musician, there is something so attractive about a live performance. I peruse YouTube like I’m lacking oxygen and it supplies a never-ending tank of the sweet stuff. Listening to a live version of a song on YouTube is hearing it in a whole new light. Instead of just hearing the studio version of a song dubbed over a lyric or music video, watching a live version adds a whole new level of entertainment. Rather than just an audio track, there is live performance, natural vocals and the aspect of crowd interaction. If you’re on the fence about going to see an artist live, and they have incredible live sound and stage presence, then that online video is the push needed for someone to garner an extra fan.

To wrap up the positives, having fans upload concerts to the internet increases exposure, which is almost always a good thing. And viewing live videos online provide a deeper form of entertainment, and can convince listeners of that artist’s talent.

Now, onto the negatives. Unfortunately for the self-proclaimed tech savvy teen, few like people hiding behind cell phones at concerts. A quick Google search of “Cell phones at concerts” will yield a high amount of negative opinions on the matter. Also found on the aforementioned Forbes infographic is the statistic that, out of every 100 concert goers, 47% of them will be texting and 32% will be updating their Facebook/Twitter accounts. Neither of those directly equate to recording video, but the precept is the same: a lot of people are utilizing their phones in the midst of a concert.

The arguments against using a cell phone to transmit a concert experience into megabytes, pixels and statuses can be summed up with three general statements.

The first is that it takes away from the experience for the person behind the smartphone. A concert is something that you probably paid a decent amount of money for. Spending your few hours worrying about getting the right sound, lighting, focus, etc. distracts you from the thing you actually paid for! If you want to experience the concert, then experience it! Don’t try and fervently document it.

Secondly, focusing on storing the concert in your phone every way possible does a disservice to the artists you’re watching. Artists like Wilco and the Black Crows ask their fans to refrain from using their phones to take photos or videos at their shows. Musicians want to play to the beautiful faces of their endearing fans, not the shiny lens of a camera phone. Also, uploading concert footage takes away from the intimacy of a live show, which leads to the third point.

Potential fans deserve to get the full experience of a concert. When thousands of live videos are easily accessible online to view, they build expectations for these shows. Sure, you could say if they don’t want to ruin the mystery of the concert they don’t have to watch the videos, but that’s like dangling a juicy slab of meat in front of a ravenous pit bull.

The debate of whether fans should use their smartphones to capture a concert is back and forth, especially among fans. Some religiously assess the situation, basically insisting that respect for artists and other concert goers must be taken into account.

With all of that said, the ethics is up in the air, but where does the effectiveness of promotion and building fan bases lay when cell phones are involved at concerts? If you value numbers, then shooting video after video may seem advantageous. That may come at the cost of the hollowed ground of intimate live performances, though.

What are your thoughts?

Check back next week for part 2, which takes a look at services and websites that consentingly live stream concerts and performances.