Free online music? iTunes shouldn't be worried

An ad-supported free music site, Spiralfrog is due to launch in September. At the moment it will only offer Universal's catalogue but apparently they are in talks with other major record companies.

The idea is that you are supposed to navigate through ninety seconds worth of ad-supported content for every song that you wish to download. Oh yeah, and the downloads won't work on your iPod and you can't play them through iTunes. There are two things that I find very disturbing about this. First the term: "navigate through content". Ninety seconds does not sound like a long time but:

a) This is subject to change and publishers will always seek to cram as much advertising as possible in front of their audience.

b) It's apparently ninety seconds per song.

If we look at the brightside we can see that this is technically a good development. It shows that the music industry is at least willing to look at options other than taking college boys to court in an effort to combat content pirates. However this current model likely has too many flaws to become a real contender. Why would I force myself to sit through a whole lot of advertising to get a song that I can't even play on an iPod? I can get the song I want, in the format I want for less than a buck.

Spiralfrog aren't the only ones getting into the game, either. AOL has relaunched its subscription music service as part of its massive repurposing effort (that makes gender reassignment look like clipping your toenails) towards becoming an online content provider. They are offering unlimited downloads for $10 or $15 a month. And you can play the files on your portable media player. This is much more like it.

Of course, it does rely on the media consumer's sense of propriety not to share the legally downloaded files once they have paid their subscriptions and got the content they were after. Clearly that's not going to be the case for every subscriber. But this is still a serviceable business model. As a general rule, people don't mind paying for things they want. Getting something for free doesn't mean I'm saving anything. Why would I want a music track that I can't play on my portable media player?

If a homeless man throws up in a paper bag and hands it to me saying "It's free and it's kinda food" I'm still not going to take it. (Probably.) The same is the case here.

Methinks the ultimate solution will end up being somewhere in the middle: readily available, ad-supported content that is actually usable and free to download -or ad-free content that I can either pay for by subscription or per download.

The first site to get this business model to work is the one that can start to take on iTunes.

Snakes on a Plane: What were they expecting, exactly?

According to USA Today, executives at New Line are scratching their heads over the comparatively little opening weekend take for Snakes on a Plane.

Exactly what were they expecting? The title is easily one of the top two best in the history of American cinema, but only people like me -people who use phrases like "history of American cinema"- are going to get it on that level. For your average moviegoer, if indeed such an animal still exists, it's going to have less appeal.

Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo is quoted in the article as saying that studios have bloated expectations of online fans. This is an understatement. As one of these online fans I actually feel vaguely insulted that they expected some kind of queue-around-the-block Star Wars cash cow that would single-handedly reverse Hollywood's downturn. They have completely missed the point of internet communities as niche audiences who -and this cannot be stressed enough- want a niche/community feel to their media or any other products they buy into. The Snakes fans feel a sense of ownership over the product... They didn't help out New Line to make them rich. It was co-creation.

Dustin Rowles is also quoted in the article. He says the best thing they (New Line) can do is to wait for DVD and make their money there. Agreed. If the fans feel a sense of ownership they will likely want to own the film. I know I will.

The fans aren't wrong. The film isn't wrong. The business model is wrong. Don't hate the player, as they say.

MySpace: The Magazine

Life's funny. I had a long drunken discussion with a visiting friend about the benefits of MySpace and the awesome leveraging power Old Man Murdoch bought when he purchased MySpace. Then I get into work and check my Mediaposts like I do every morning and low and behold: There's talk of publishing a MySpace magazine.

This is a brilliant idea. The executive quoted in the article is understandably concerned about "damaging the MySpace brand." I don't think this should be too much of a concern. Here's why: The two little words "My" and "Space" provoke hysterical reactions from parents already concerned about sexual predators. And art/design type also tend to shudder when they hear those words. Let's face it. The site is hideous -garish wallpaper, unbidden music auto-starting, poor spelling, text talk...

It's almost like Fox in a way: Massive, crude, either loved or hated and entirely unstoppable.

Of course, if they are concerned about protecting the MySpace brand there's always something else they could try: How about publishing a magazine that isn't crap? That could work.

A New Future For TV Pilots

Andrew Wallenstein writes in the Hollywood Reporter that another pilot has been illegally released over the internet. "The Adventures of Big Handsome Guy and His Little Friend" appeared on several viral video sites. At Break.com alone, it was streamed more than 250 000 times. Fox has written numerous cease and desist letters and the offending content will no doubt vanish from the web.

That's fine. Intellectual Property is all well and good but has it occurred to anyone that they are completely missing the point? Why isn't every pilot released over the internet? Viral marketing will see that the good ones get more views -meaning that the show stands a better chance of doing well- and the bad ones won't waste anymore of the network's money. For the life of me I cannot see why this doesn't become industry practice.

And it's not all bad for the creators of "Handsome". While they might have missed a spot on Fox's fall schedule the creators have apparently been asked to supply another script. Fox has extended its option to December. Good luck guys. This particular network isn't exactly known for wise choices when it comes to picking up new shows or continuing with good ones.

New York Observer Sold

I'm 25. Here are things I do:

1) Drink heavily
2) Complain about how poorly written some TV shows are
3) Work my 9-5 (7:30-7:30 actually) job

At no stage this year was buying the New York Observer on my list of things to do. But it was for Jared Kushner -also 25.

Tragically only last night I was listing off my accomplishments over the last couple of years (since moving to New Zealand) and was feeling a little bit proud of myself -not in a bad way or anything. Sadly becoming publisher of a celebrated and well-respected New York paper didn't find its way onto that list.

In my defence, Jared bought the paper for around US $10 million and I don't have that kind of money. I'm just going to say that I was looking for a publication at around the five mil mark and leave it at that. Maybe Jared can spot me the money.