Three Minute Happiness - All Comments

re: Lauren Luke: The Real Deal

Kevin Gordon — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:46:39 GMT

Nice one James.

Tell us more.

I'm fascinated.

re: What's going to win the Digital awards this year?

Pieter Lambrechts — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:57:14 GMT

Hi there's a typo in the previous post. The brand is 'Axion'.

re: What's going to win the Digital awards this year?

Pieter Lambrechts — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:45:42 GMT

Hi James,

thanks for your article about the campaign Boondoggle developed for action.

If there are readers that would like more information about the campaign, please direct them to:

bornoncloud9.be/.../index.html

The current link is the axion website, but given the fact that the campaign has ended, there 's not much information available there.

Thanks

the Boondoggle crew

re: Can Fallon Do Digital?

daniel h — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:06:29 GMT

I was under the impression that Skimmer was developed by a Sierra Bravo, a consultancy (a la a very slim Accenture) who should be well versed in the software development lifecycle. I assume they were responsible for QA etc...?

http://bit.ly/sJeKB

It's appropriate that Fallon didn't apportion blame to them for the hiccup.

re: Can Fallon Do Digital?

John Baker — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:57:18 GMT

There is no doubt you learn digital marketing by doing and working wtih networked computers is complicated so we have to be sympathetic to innovative sites having bugs.

Bigger question is whether traditional agencies should be managing application development. Being really good at telling a story through film is an amazing skill, if they want to do applications they have to invest in QA, process, version control ... it is a whole different world. And that is after understanding the subtleties of what's been built before, why interface choices can make or break it, and why people will substitute this for another application.

This is the other end of the spectrum from advertising. I might just get a good 30 second film from a team at Accenture ... but I wouldn't bet my job on it.

re: Can Fallon Do Digital?

Chris Wiggins — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:22:19 GMT

Hi, sorry your initial experience wasn't good. We're still in beta though! :) Hopefully you'll have better luck soon.

Some good points in the pictured conversation. To the point about area of expertise, I think that what has long been considered "area of expertise" for marketing agencies is changing, or at least needs to. The line between product and marketing will continue to blurand agencies need to be ready for that. Skimmer is an experiment, created with an extremely small budget to see if a creative agency's approach to an app like this would appeal to some people (and to get people like yourself discussing us, of course ;).

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

Kevin Gordon — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:33:20 GMT

I'd give Cheryl Cole Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

Audio Android — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:52:42 GMT

In case it's of interest, I just received this email from PRS :

Dear Member

You may have read the news stories this week about Google blocking access to â€˜premiumâ€™ video content on YouTube in the UK as a result of their not agreeing a new licence with PRS for Music. Premium content appears to refer to music videos that are traditionally uploaded by record companies.

You may also have read that Google took this decision unilaterally, without any request from us to do so. Their licence with us had expired at the end of December 2008 and we were negotiating their new one. We do not usually ask anyone to remove content as long as good faith negotiations are taking place.

Immediately we heard news of Googleâ€™s decision to pull content from YouTube, and that they were talking to the press about it, we issued our own press statement. We expressed our outrage, shock and disappointment on behalf of UK consumers and on behalf of you, our members that Google should take this action.

Googleâ€™s decision must be seen as an attempt to influence commercial negotiation and the focus on â€˜premiumâ€™ content as an attempt to cause disruption within the music industry again. This content may account for about 1% of YouTube music streams.

At the heart of Googleâ€™s precipitous action is the going rate for music. This is the rate set by the UK Copyright Tribunal in 2007. The Tribunal is the ultimate and independent arbiter of copyright dispute. Digital service providers pay a fraction of a penny per stream to the creator of the music.

Most of the major digital service providers are licensed by PRS for Music. And just recently we have signed deals with Amazon, Beatport, Nokia Comes With Music and Qtrax.

YouTube has signed-up to licences in very few countries around the world â€“ we were one of the few. They have never before taken down content unless they have been forced to do so by copyright holders. Meanwhile, in the UK, consumer streams of YouTube â€˜premiumâ€™ content have risen by almost 300% in the last year alone (up from 75m streams a quarter to nearly 300m streams a quarter). In total, Google want to pay 50% less than they paid before for that usage. Google think they paid too much last time. But their music usage, charged at the going rate, suggests they were significantly underpaying.

A further delay to our negotiation has been that Google is, at present, not giving us the data we need to calculate correct royalty payments to you. We ask them to make returns on their music use in the same way that every other major licensee does in order that we can properly analyse it, charge the right fee and then pay the copyright owners we represent. If thereâ€™s a stream of a track we donâ€™t control, Google wonâ€™t pay us for that stream. Google would like to see our database in order to match it against theirs so they can calculate how much they owe us.

We look forward to continuing our negotiations with Google where we will be looking for them to pay an appropriate amount for the volume of music they use and the contribution that songwriters make to the success of their service.

In the meantime, please help us to help you. There are numerous Internet blogs hosting discussions on songwriter royalties. All too often, the voice of the composer and songwriter is lost in the midst of issues relating to the freedom of the Internet. Many blog posters misunderstand how royalties work and how you get paid. We should not forget that more than 90% of PRS for Music members receive less than Â£5,000 per year in royalties.

... etc

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

Audio Android — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:49:04 GMT

The danger is, that as Google & Youtube move into the future and possibly become equivalent to the largest broadcaster (as TV and media become more digital) - they will take their lax approach to copyright with them.

As content creators, I believe we should ALL stand up to them now. Of course from my POV that creative content is music (although the youtube thing doesn't directly effect me personally)

Even without the lines between broadcast models like BBC Radio, TV etc merging with online delivery - if Google & Youtube do not play fair - and do not pay their dues, how long do you think it will be before the BBC says, OK then, why should we ?

No, I'm behind PRS 100% on this, except to say - that the original, temporary deal, which they negotiated with Google in the first place (and which expired on December 08) - was to weak to start with.

Make the F*cker$ pay, I say.

;-)

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

James Cooper — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:55:17 GMT

I totally agree that musicians - and all artists - should be paid for their work. The internet has made it really easy for people (Ad Agencies esp) to rip off other people's work. And that's clearly not right.

What I am saying is that it seems that people are expecting to strike deals that would have them paid the same riches they had before the web and I just don't think that's tenable any more.

We all have to just admit that the game has changed. There are always ways to make money through art - the smart record companies and indeed Google / YouTube will work that out. I just don't think it will be in the same nature as before

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

SEAN RUTTLEDGE — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:42:28 GMT

The whole concept of youtube is to make money from "Other peoples content" aside for a Chad & Steve's much neglected channels and a couple of lame attempts at an official Youtube "Community" channel all the content on Youtube is created by outsiders

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

Audio Android — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:00:14 GMT

Firstly, as far as I know - Record Comapnies have not pulled music videos from youtube. Youtube themselves have pulled the plug on UK users.

Why ?

Because despite Googles revenues of 5.7 Billion Dollars last quarter - they refuse to pay a fair price to the rights holders of the COPYRIGHT materials - with which they are making serious money with on Youtube.

Now predictably the web will be full of the great mis-informed all shouting "Greedy Record Companies" !

But as far as I'm concerned its as simple as believing if a person or a company is making good money out of copyrighted material the the rights holder/s (particularly from my POV, the artists) - should see a fair percentage of that.

It's not all about Robbie Williams. Not at all - and this issue actually goes much wider than just Youtube.

There are all sorts of Web & Web 2.0 companies making money from other peoples creative & copyrighted content. This is basically criminal.

If you make money from *my music, good for you - but you damn well better make sure I see *my cut !!! ;-)

re: Who will be the Digital David Ogilvy?

stefan roy — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:16:36 GMT

Bob greenberg

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

patrick morrison — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:23:11 GMT

Apparently Youtube (corporate as opposed to user public) has pulled a proportion of it's music content as it is re- negotiating rights contracts with people like PRS. PRS want paying more....... but Youtube's music is growing at 200-300% a year...... it's all interlinked, but can i suggest that Chezzer Cole she should get at least 50 pence or a pound every now and again for her Youtube playouts......which is really no way to listen to music or to meet a nice girl

re: How much would you give me for Cheryl Cole?

Gordon Macmillan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:26:02 GMT

For saint Cheryl? What can you give to a disposable princess of pop, but a husband like Ashley Cole.