Last night’s Google Music announcement introduced a legitimate iTunes competitor that not only brings a huge collection of free and paid music to your fingertips, but also offers social sharing of paid music, exclusive tracks from prestigious artists, $25 independent artist integration so that anyone can join, promote and sell their music affordably, and more. One of my favorite features announced is Listen Free, which allows you to share any song or album you buy through Google Music with your Google+ contacts, enabling them to listen to the whole song or album one time, completely free.
One could argue that this socialization of music is already deeply rooted in our lifestyle, but there is something very organic about buying it and sharing it in the same process. Not only do people want to show their friends what they have bought at this very instant (call it bragging if you really want) but letting people listen once free of cost is a great way of suggesting great music and naturally promoting it.
You can also add a note to your share, which provides a personal touch that may suit independent artists and special situations best. Imagine buying an indie album and tacking on a note saying, “This is one of my best friends from college! Amazing musician! If you like Sublime, you will love this!” Your Sublime-loving friends would be likely to give it a free listen, and with the personal connection added, may just drop the measly $1 to buy a track (although artists set their own prices).
We’ve seen the “chain mail” crap running rampant recently on social networks. You know, the “post this to your page if…” type nonsense. I’m a little concerned that some rotten person may scheme to falsely socialize their music. Imagine someone by buying their own songs/albums from numerous accounts and sharing them with personal notes such as: “Do you know someone with Cancer? Or who has lost the battle with Cancer? We’re trying to help find a cure… buy our album and 100% of the proceeds will go to Cancer Research.”
Of course, then 0% of the proceeds go to Cancer Research and it becomes very difficult to hold the artist accountable. Whereas people probably lie all the time about where donations truly end up, the deep social integration provides an avenue for preying on the uninformed. So consider this a warning and a plea: I’m asking you – People of the Tech Elite Republic – to publicly squash anything like this should you see it make the rounds.
You’ll notice there are two times in the above video where I become a bit… surprised. The first is when I’m browsing through the Top Albums and start wondering how they are at the top of anything. I have no clue how Google chooses what music rises to the top of their charts, but either they’ve got a really stinky algo for Top Music or everyone except me has bad taste. I’m eager to see how these charts change over the coming days and weeks.
I was also surprised by the prices: $20 for The Who album? That’s the type of price I’d expect by walking into Sam Goody. Of course with the ability for artists and labels to set their own prices, you’re going to get a lot of that and it’s up to the consumer to decide “is it worth it”?
I’m guessing that prices are initially inflated. These artists and labels know that Google Music is hot right when it’s announced and people are going to be testing it out, so why not make a few extra bucks on the influx? Meanwhile, other artists take a different approach and leverage that influx by making a track or two free, getting their music into people’s hands and hopefully creating some momentum.
I have a Slacker subscription and love it. But I’m already an equal fan of Google Music. I’ve already heard tons of complaints and criticism that Google has announced a service that is already behind the curve with people pronouncing, “Streaming is the future!” and, “Why would I pay for music when I can get a complete library for $10/month.”
Music is in a very interesting, middleground, unbalanced state right now with nobody fully understanding the equation of how musicians can and should make money. Is it through selling their actual art- their music? Is it through giving their art away for free and plastering advertising on it and in it? Is it through ticket sales of live events? Is it through related merchandise?
I think we’ve started moving away from the former – artists selling their actual art – but I think that part of the equation is here to stay and rightfully so, for a number of reasons:
There is obviously a lot to still learn in the music industry and I’m not claiming myself or Google Music has all the answers. But I do believe that paid music will and should always be some part of the equation. Who knows: maybe in the next few years Google will announce a streaming component that offers their entire music library for free, streaming with ads, for a price without ads, but only those who pay for individual tracks/albums can download and listen locally.
Regardless of how it turns out, I think we’ll be better of for having Google involved in the Music space. Right now iTunes seems to be the only show, and while Apple has done a fantastic job with their music-driven products, healthy competition will move the industry forward. And if there is anything we know from watching the tech space these last few years, it’s that Apple and Google have a knack for pushing each other forward… and well ahead of the competition while they’re at it.