Posts
My friend and former employee Rebecca Nicholson interviewed me for the Guardian last week. The piece itself is here but seeing as much of what was discussed revolves around questions a lot of people are asking me (especially for their ruddy degree coursework... which is somewhat ironic as I didn't even do a degree, although the amount of times I've answered people's questions I feel as if I have over the past few year's), I thought I'd post it here.
This is the IM transcript which has been airbrushed everso slightly of randomness and stumblings off piste. It wasn't done with the idea of anyone reading it in mind but hopefully, if I sent you a link to this, it'll save me repeating myself...
15:15 me: O HAI!
rebecca.nicholson: ah good.
me: don't quote me on that
rebecca.nicholson: too late
rebecca.nicholson: 15:16so this piece
is only short, about 450 words
about online music editorial
the hook is me closing the lipster
me: ah, nice
is it a rant blaming me for starting it?
15:17 rebecca.nicholson: ha no
it's more about how editorial sites are at saturation point
mostly blogs
me: it's like a hall of mirrors in a nuclear echo chamber and no-one is really saying anything, just repeating things and it gets a bit Chinese whispers
15:18 rebecca.nicholson: and that for sites to thrive they need to have a) a function (so dis's message boards) and b) have been established for at least three years
so. do you think we're at saturation with music editorial?
15:19 me: I think what has happened is every passionate pub conversation has turned into 'editorial'and for most people, instead of reading what other people have to say, they write it themselves
and then re-read what they've written and feel like they need to discover more and tick all the boxes all their peers are covering
15:20 I'm not sure if there can ever be too much music coverage on the web but only a small amount of it will be read
the worst bit now is that people don't really need to read any more to inform their purchases because they're neither purchasing nor held back by any barrier of access but their time
15:21 I think much more than music editorial reaching saturation point, the number of ways people can consume and talk about music have reached saturation
15:22 people are now setting up band of the day twitterfeeds instead of wasting 2minutes setting up a blogspot
rebecca.nicholson: So in terms of being revenue-generating businesses, do you think editorial sites, particularly new ones, are doomed to fail? Why is that?
Because people can aggregate stuff now?
(That might be phrased worng)
me: Yeah sites like gigulate and mog.com [http://mog.com] are much better business ideas than trying to start an editorial site
15:23 Unless you're reaching half a million people it's near impossible to make any real money from a website
15:24 Advertising money is pithy, sponsorship is a full-time job to acquire and sites run as business (like, say Gigwise, NME.com [http://NME.com]) are optimized based on google SEO, much more than what music excites or intrigues them
15:25 I think the 3years thing makes sense but I think only because the ones who last that long are in it for the long haul because they HAVE to write about music and share what they love and have found an audience who appreciates this outpouring from a gatekeeper
15:27 I'm not sure anyone could start a music site as a career or profit-focussed business. and I think anyone who does have money as the goal are DOIN IT RONG
15:28 rebecca.nicholson: but what about making enough money to cover costs, say?
me: writing about music (much like making music) is a fairly indulgent pastime and anyone who gets paid, let alone makes a living from it is living a dream. Anyone who thinks they can do it for a living without spending 3yrs living off baked beans is delusional
15:29 rebecca.nicholson: ok
so specifically with dis:
do you think that the function of your message boards, of your community
keeps the site as big as it is?
any more so than the editorial?
me: i think there are basic costs but the biggest one is the cost of living to carry something off you need at least one person working on it full-time or 10 people doing it as a hobby if you want it to be as big as DiS, Pitchfork, Stereogum, etc
15:31 I think the community is a whole different dimension, it started as the equivalent of our letters page but has quickly grown into a significant part of our business. It's like a club which is only open on fri/sat having a cafe/bar which makes the rest of the business viable but isn't the core of what the place was intended to be (however, I totally admit that it's fast becoming a much more exciting outlet for expression and resource for connecting people than writing about records which on the whole people have already heard and formed their own opinions of)
rebecca.nicholson: so would you say that aspect DOES make it viable (sorry to shout, need emphases)
15:32 me: It certainly helps. But on the flipside the cost of developing and maintaining them, with teh cost of techies, is hard to factor in whether it essentially breaks even
15:33 yet the problem we have is that we built it all before any social networks existed and the web has shifted so much in the past decade
rebecca.nicholson: ok
thanks
this is all very useful
me: phew
rebecca.nicholson: do you think the future is in new sites like gigulate?
or sites like black cab sessions - simple but with a clear USP?15:35 me: Singular USPs are fantastic and I don't disagree with some people saying that sites like DiS are trying to be a jack of all trades (...master of none?) but I'm not sure how those simple things can be sticky unless they're part of a wider eco-system (like the way shopping centers work)
15:36 I think a lot of sites like both gigulate and black cabs are much more like services which need to bolt on to existing things in order to find an audience... like, I dunno, a bongo player needs a band.
rebecca.nicholson: that's a really good point
15:37 me: And obviously if all the mp3 blogs get legal action, the Hype Machine no longer exists without the bloggers wot feeds it
rebecca.nicholson: but are they ever going to bolt onto something brand new? or do they need that authority which comes from being established for so long?
the three-year minimum thing again
15:38 me: A lot of sites are like new bands, they get this huge spike of 'ooooh this is all shiny and new' interest and then there's no reason for people to talk about them and they forget about them really quickly, unless they re-invent and re-launch themselves
15:39 It's like anything tho, without finding 'a story' to market what you do, so that it find an audience, it can be brilliant but totally unknown
rebecca.nicholson: i guess the big question, very simply, is "are the doors closed?"
me:
15:40 The doors are revolving, they don't have locks, it's just about how skillfully you can run through them as to whether you get through to the otherside (break on through...)
15:41 rebecca.nicholson: ha
so you don't think it's a non-starter then, to launch an editorial music site as a business, not just a hobby
15:44
have you noticed the recession affecting web advertising?
for dis
and elsewhere
me: There's no real business model of starting a music editorial magazine online, it needs to be viewed like fanzines were. Obviously print magazines live in a different world that advertisers understand but blogs the web, etc only make sense to the small niches who read and cherish them. There's no hollywood or Paris Fashion Week glitz or several million bozos staring into the gogglebox to reach for anyone to truly start spunking big bucks on reaching connoisseurs of blogtronica, donk-step or donkey-wonk pop
15:45 Dec, Jan and Feb were three of our worst months ever for ads, because when campaigns were being booked in October everyone panicked and withdrew their ad budgets
rebecca.nicholson:
15:46 is it getting better?
or worse?
or steadying?
15:47 me: I think so much of what is spent on youth-orientated marketing is long-term ad spend from aspirational brands who want us to buy stuff when we're grown up. Now's not the best of time to invest in the future, I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment