Make anything in your video clickable, or add clickable media files, images, relevant icons, MP3 files, and more, creating a powerful interactive experience for your users.
Engage with advertisers and sponsors to pay for interactive links anywhere within your video. Share your interactive video across the internet, driving traffic back to your site or anywhere on the web through your clickable links.

While there is a free level of service that Veeple provides, you will have to pay for the interactive elements. Hosting is “in the cloud” so you won’t have to worry about bandwidth. I haven’t yet taken their online webinar that goes into more details of how to make the best of their service, but as I understand it, this is how it works: You create an account at Veeple.com, upload your video, then you gain access to their simple tools that allow you to add the interactive elements. Then you have your “Veeple-ized” video which you can then embed all over the web as you would any other kind of widget or video. Pricing is based on views, so if you are getting up to 5000 views of your video that will come for a flat fee of $49/month. Above 5000 views and it transitions to a cost per view, starting at $0.008 per view and scaling down in cost as you pass higher thresholds of viewing.

So if you have content which you think will be frequently watched, either because it is compelling viral content, or you have a network of fans, blogs etc that will re-post and watch your content, then it will cost you a small amount of money. But it gives you the opportunity to find a sponsor or advertiser with which to co-brand your content and charge them money for. Veeple provides extensive stats and tracking on the views of your video.

I recently had the opportunity to ask some questions of one of Veeple’s co-founders, Scott Broomfield, via email and phone.
He gave the general context of Veeple as follows:

To begin, think about Veeple in terms of breadth and depth.  The breadth is our interactivity, which enhances storytelling.  One thing is for certain, as YouTube has proven, people love to tell their story. The depth is our ability to add in relevant and non-intrusive advertising, which helps the publisher monetize their content.

Second, we are one of the few who provide a complete service 100% ‘in the cloud.’  With Veeple, you get the Video Player, the CMS, the CDN (we use Amazon), Full Analytics and Interactivity.  Nothing to download. No cookies. No add/delete programs.  And, our focus is 100% for the benefit of the web publisher.  One can serve only one master and our’s is the web publisher.

When did you launch Veeple?
We founded the company in early 2007.  We built the first alpha product by October of 2007.  We raised about $600K and built our first beta product and laboratory, where a few hundred people posted numerous videos.  We took this learning, added another $700K in our own funds and built our first commercial product. We launched the service - what we call Video as a Service or ‘VaaS’ about two weeks ago.  So far we have about 70 registrations/sign-ups.

Can Veeple-ized videos be uploaded to YouTube and other similar sites and retain their functionality? Or do they only work in the Veeple player?
The answer is yes from a technical POV, but no from a business POV as related to Youtbe.  In other words, if a site allows metadata to attach to the JPEG, then we run well.  Youtube, for commerical reasons, does not allow this.  Some other sites do, like MySpace, Facebook, Demand media, Stupidvideos, GrindTV, LP33 and others.

How realistic is it to create a video technology that doesn’t play with the leading online video destinations, especially for folks like independent musicians who are looking to expand their reach?
The content owner, and in your case the musician, controls where their content show up with Veeple.  We have comprehensive embed functionality that, if they allow it, enables any third party the ability to consume a video (including a music video). Further, we think that the content person will, by definition, continue to use Youtube due to their reach.  However, we also see the same content owner placing video on their own site and using Veeple to improve the messaging/storytelling and allow anyone to embed.  Keep in mind that when a video is embedded to a third party site, all the Veeple functionality flows with the video and can ‘trackback’ to the original web site.

Are you seeing any trends yet in your user base – Is it mostly people who have content, such as musicians or other content-owners? Or are you seeing advertisers/ad agencies using it as the next generation of banner ad?
Ouch, I would die if this became the next form of banner ad.  I hate banner ads.  We would hope that all ads inserted into a video would be done in a non-intrusive, relevant and engaging fashion.  Remember that the content owner makes the decision when, where and why an ad is placed.

Trends.  Well, most important from our point of view is that people really like what we are doing.  We have had over 40 meetings in the past 3 weeks and there has yet to be a single bad meeting. As to specifics, we do not yet have enough people to really have empirical data, but people seem to like to click on the video, if the ‘veespot’ is done well.  We have seen a CTRs of between 8% and 22%, which is very high.  We are seeing that people like to use both transparent spots (so the video still looks good) and images that look like they are part of the video.  As to adoption, our top 5 market segments so far are: How To, Entertainment, Politics (of course), Technology, and Social Media.

Do you have any examples of musicians using your technology that you can share with us – either anecdotal or sites where we can see it in action?
How about Paramore!!  That would be cool.  We are using one of their videos in our showroom.
http://veeple.com/showroom.php?video=music

Is there anything you care to share about how you see Veeple’s future shaping up? E.g. Ideas for added features in the future? The overall vision for the company?

Well, I am reluctant to discuss much because the world is very competitive and people move very fast nowadays.  That said, I can share with you 3 quick things: 1) We will be adding in MP3 capability soon (next month or so), 2) Dynamic Flash images, in addition to static images, and 3) a pencil drawing function that will allow the tracking of an object through a video (really cool). A couple of other really cool things, but I will not talk about them until we launch them. The vision thing is all about adding tremendous value to and for the web publisher.  To help them tell their stories, deliver their messages and, if they desire to do so, make money in the process.
In a follow up conversation I asked Scott if he could give some ideas as to how musicians may best use Veeple. He indicated that they will be adding MP3 capability, meaning that you could make an mp3, either a full song or ringtone, directly downloadable from the Veeple video. Since a Veeple video acts like a widget, meaning that when you update the video, it automatically and immediately updates wherever the video is posted on the web, you could use it to promote tour dates on  a real time basis. You can also link to buy tickets directly from your video and the tracking will allow you to collect stats on that – good info that you can provide a venue manager, promoter or anyone interested in booking you. You could add links to your various social profiles, homepage, retail sites directly from the video to drive traffic wherever you want. You could also use the service to include cross-promotions with sponsors etc in your videos.
Companies like MTV are looking at Veeple as a potential way to monetize their catalog of older content. They have alos been working with Vloggerheads.com who welcome Veeple-ized videos.

Veeple is in its early stages as far as penetration and adoption goes. But their service does allow for many more creative uses of video. So it’s worth looking into and keeping an eye on and seeing if you can come up with inventive ways to use it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

What’s the difference between a strategy and a promotional/marketing campaign?
What I mean by strategy is a long-term vision, plan or direction that you have for your career as an artist, business or brand. It is not only the vision, but the roadmap that helps you plan your course. Your strategy may change over time or adapt to circumstances, but the point is that you are not just blindly plodding along hoping for the best.
In contrast, a marketing campaign is a short/mid term promotional plan, usually around a specific product or event, such as an album release, or a tour. Such a campaign would be one element of your overall strategy.

What I usually find is that a lot of independent artists think that their album marketing campaign IS their strategy. They hire publicists and promoters etc when they have an album coming out and know they need a promotional push, but what’s going on the other 9 or 10 months out of the year that are not part of that new release window? Many times, the answer seems to be, not much.
Why treat yourself as a seasonal business that must hope to make as much as possible from one release? Wouldn’t it be better to develop ways to create residual income with the bonus of spikes around album releases, tours and so forth?

This is where strategy comes into play.

Market consistently, not episodically
Just because you don’t have an album coming out every month of the year, doesn’t mean there aren’t things you can and should be doing on an ongoing basis.
Your online strategy should include branding yourself, developing a database of fans and marketing to them, developing relationships with bloggers and people that can help you, and generally being active enough to keep your name in front of people on a regular basis.

Particularly in the online world there is now a lot of potential power in your hands so you need a clear direction for what you are doing and how to make the most of the opportunities available to you. It’s easy to get overwhelmed with the wealth of information, social networking sites and tools available to you – if you have a strategy it will help you maximize your time and energy. The more you feel you are drowning online, the less effective you will be, and most likely will run out of steam soon enough.

Repetition is key
Chances are you will not make the splash you think you can with just one album release particularly if it is your first one, or if you are not particularly well-known.  It’s becoming harder and harder to get the attention of bloggers and other editors to even listen to your music, never mind write about it, so you need to be engaging them on a long term basis. Essentially your strategy is what lays the foundation for a successful marketing campaign when you do have an album that comes out – people will pay more attention to your album if they already have an inkling of what you are about – that goes for folks on the editorial side as well as fans/consumers. Both sets of people need multiple impressions before they will pay attention to you and take any action or seek out further info. You will get more bang for your buck if you’ve already laid some groundwork before you invest in publicists etc since they will be able to make more headway.

Take charge of your relationship with your fans
One of your most important assets should be an opt-in email database of fans. These are people that have visited one of your sites, downloaded music, or engaged with you in some way and have decided you are interesting enough to warrant them being kept up to date via emails. Not MySpace bulletins but actual emails right to their inbox. So you need to proactively find your fans and develop a relationship with them. This is something that can be done year-round.

Additionally, the prevalence of social networks means that all your fans’ info is spread across various places and you don’t have direct access to them except through the tools that particular site provides. For maximum efficiency you should be channeling those people to your site, or at least collecting their email addresses so that you own those relationships – get their info and communicate directly with them. Turn them from “friends” into real “fans”.

The album no longer needs to be the only way you release content.
You can release content and music digitally as frequently as you choose, so you need a way to get it out there and promote it. Whether that is music you sell, or music you give away to gain ears, you have to create demand –get folks hooked on your music and be excited for more of it.  As we mentioned in “digital demand for urban artists” when done strategically over time, a steady stream of content released throughout the internet can help boost your career. Notice I am using the word “content”. Music isn’t the only form of content – it could also be a blog you write, photos your upload, videos you make etc. Content can take so many forms these days and all are useful in providing touchstones for people to engage with you. A digital strategy will mean that you have the tools to create and distribute this content in an effective manner, then harness the benefits of it.

Think long-term
Many of the tools now becoming available online have to do with social networking, which is most effective as a part of a long-term plan. The social networks only work if you work them and are best used consistently and not just for promotions otherwise you will turn people off with your advertising and lack of personality. Many labels I come across are guilty of this. They set up a MySpace for a particular album release and promote it for about 2-3 months but after that it languishes. It’s smarter to have profiles based around your brand and maintain them for the long term since they will reap greater benefits. Again, think strategically for the long-term. The nature of branding, is really that it only works over time, so this is something you commit to for the long haul.

Create systems for residual income
A digital strategy will help you realize that you can be residually generating revenue all the time through your own website where people can make a purchase. Not to mention continual demand will drive organic traffic to a catalog of releases you may have. Contrary to what major labels would have you believe, your catalog is valuable. Once people discover you, they want to have access to all your music, not just what you’ve released in the last 30 days.

Have I convinced you yet?
I want to hear from you if:
You have a strategy and would like to brag about it. Or at least share some insights.
You don’t have one and need help masterminding one.
You think I’m on crack.

I’ll get into some specifics of what the strategy actually looks like in another article…

—
Photo credits (in order of appearance):
http://flickr.com/photos/vascellari/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidking/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

“In two days more people have been exposed to my music than in the entire previous 12 months.”

While this type of promotion may not be the right choice for every artist, Fakesensations’ story shows that it can be an effective strategy, and more importantly that the option to utilize P2P should be up to the artists, not the major labels, ISPs or anyone else.

I recommend reading the full article here.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Yesterday I was coordinating the press preview for Scion’s new exhibit at their Culver City gallery: “Insiders, Outsiders & the Middle” curated by Giant Robot. Space Invader is one of the featured artists. As I watched the artists set up their work and transform the gallery before my eyes, I had the opportunity to chat with Space Invader about one of his pieces. The photo below was taken with my Blackberry Curve, so it’s not the best, but it will do….

So while this is a piece of art, there is very literally a hidden message. This is actually a QR Code/Data Matrix , which is the next generation of barcodes. I believe that QR Code and Data Matrix are 2 versions of the same technology and that the former was developed by a Japanese company and the latter by an American one. They work in the same way but just look a little different. We are all familiar with the black and white vertical lines of a barcode which designate a series of numbers. Well the QR Code, which is already very common in Japan (of course the US is technologically lagging), actually contains real data - words, hyperlinks, contact info, numbers etc. You can scan it with your reader-equipped cell phone and a message will pop up on your screen, or even a hyperlink.

So there might be a poster for a movie with a QR Code included - you wave your phone at it and it opens up a video trailer on your phone. No lie, this is actually real!

So back to Space Invader. The piece above has a message encoded in it. He demonstrated with his iPhone, on to which he had downloaded an app that can read QR Codes. He pointed his phone at the piece as if to take a picture and the text popped up on his screen “This is an invasion.” Nice! I tried to take a pic of the result but as you can see below, I couldn’t get the best photo with my cameraphone.

Additionally there is a 40% tolerance for error, so Space Invader can actually tweak the appearance of the code a little bit to include his signature space invader icon (or parts of it, check the bottom left corner), and the code will still be readable and produce the same message.

So expect to see a whole new level of street art popping up courtesy of Mr. Invader and once this technology is prevalent in the US there will be plenty of unique ways to market with it.
For more info on QR codes, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datamatrix

Generate your own!
http://www.i-nigma.com/personal/Create.asp

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Ever since iTunes instigated the $0.99 per song model, it has been hotly debated. Some folks think $0.99 is too expensive for a song; others think it is not expensive enough. Still more think that there shouldn’t just be one standard price for tracks; that labels and artists should have more flexibility in pricing so that hot, new items can be priced higher than catalog material, following the pattern in brick and mortar stores. As part of this overall debate, there seems to be emerging what I think is a disturbing trend of wanting the new standard per-track price to be in the region of just $0.25.

I was prompted to write this specific post by what I read in a recent email newsletter from Bob Davis of Soul Patrol. He referred to some comments from Nettwerk Management CEO Terry McBride suggesting that the sweet spot for selling digital tracks is $0.25 and that this is what labels should be selling them for in order to create a ‘tipping point’ for digital music sales. Davis suggested that he felt the same way based on sales of his Virtual Album project where he varied the pricing of the album and found that approx $0.20 was the most popular per-track price.

I definitely agree with the overall concept of having variable pricing available as a digital retail model - the more options for artists, labels and consumers, the better. But I just can’t get my head around the overall goal of making music so ridiculously cheap. Call me old-fashioned but music in digital format has already been greatly devalued in the eyes of the consumer so why perpetuate this devaluation by suggesting that a song is only worth $0.25? Shouldn’t we be doing more to add value, not decrease it?

I think free and cheap music has its place for promotional and marketing value but when people then have their interest piqued enough to actually make a purchase, I think they should be shelling out more than $0.25 per song, or $2 per album (as McBride suggests).

Davis says “smart Indy artists & labels who adopt [variable pricing] as a core strategy, will be successful in not only making money, but more importantly will be able to identify and connect with their “true fans” and therefore be able create their own marketplace that will sustain their career/business for many years.” I followed up with him via email and he further explained his position:

The price of a song should be whatever the market will bear. The cheaper the song, the more people will become customers. It’s simple economics 101.

Consider the following examples:
If 100 people buy at $1.00/song, then you make $100.00

However it’s better for the career of the artist, if they sell 200
copies at $0.50/song, because now they have 200 fans.

Even better if they sell 400 copies at $0.25/song, because now they have
400 fans.

See it’s really the total number of fans (people who actually make a purchase) that is important to the artist long term career prospects, not the short term revenue.

The identification and obtaining the permission of fans to contact them directly in the future is what should be the primary goal of all indy artists on the internet. Identifying them and obtaining their permission to contact them directly in the future becomes the single most important online asset of the indy artist, because that is how you build your
consumer base for the future.

In my example, I now would have 400 people (as opposed to 100 people), who are my fans, that I can engage directly in economic activity, that because they are my fans (ie; they have actually brought something from me at least one time), I can probably sell them other things (concert tickets, merchandise, etc) in the future.

If you extrapolate a little, then if I have 10,000 people who are willing to spend at least $10.00/year with me, then I can have a minimum annual income of $100,000/year. Now I don’t have to have a “day job”…

Bob’s logic makes some sense on the surface but I think it lacks real practicality, especially for indies. I’m curious as to where Bob thinks the average indie artist can find 10 000 paying fans per year. From my experience, pricing is not the challenge for indies, gaining visibility is, and certainly the kind of visibility that could attract 10 000 customers. I don’t think that the $0.99 track price is the barrier to entry for consumers. Many indies can’t even attract enough attention when they give their music away. It’s more that they don’t necessarily have the resources for the marketing needed to attract a large number of fans. I think 10 000 paying fans per year is quite a steep goal for the average indie. And I’d argue that if those people are truly your fans, they would be willing to pay more than a few cents for your music. Once the emotional connection is there, if you are producing good music, people will pay for it. And I feel that should be the goal - to produce music good enough that people want to buy it - not to make your music available for bargain basement prices. Of course, as Bob states, indies need to develop that direct relationship with their fans, but there are other ways to connect with potential fans and get them on your mailing list without devaluing your product. This model might be able to work for majors who can make up for the low price with volume of sales but for indies I don’t think it’s viable.

Additionally the $10 per year that Bob’s plan requires each of the 10 000 to spend, means at $.25 per song, each one of those 10 000 needs to buy 40 songs every year! Not all 10 000 will want to buy the same 40 songs so the artist then has to produce way more than 40 songs every year of retail quality - again that could be a tall order. But then I guess if you’re only charging $.25 per song, they don’t have to be that great eh? Do we really want music to become fast food? Cheap, hastily consumed, and an entirely forgettable experience?

I’d also argue that just because I forked out $0.25 for a song, that hardly qualifies me as a fan and isn’t an indication that I’m that invested in you as an artist. However, get me to buy your whole album for $10 and maybe I’m someone who would then be willing to part with more cash to go see a show or make some additional purchase because I clearly have a real interest in your music.

Kevin Kelly recently suggested you only need “1000 true fans” to make the same living that Bob suggests - approx $100 000/year. Kelly’s concept is that you just need 1000 fans who’ll spend $100 in the course of a year. I’m not sure which model is better and would be interested to hear from musicians and labels who have direct experience to relate but it seems that this would be more feasible - a smaller number of people who have a strong connection to your music.

VARIABLE PRICING AS A PROMOTIONAL TOOL

I would suggest using variable pricing as a promotional tool, but not as a way to lower the benchmark for music. Reel listeners in with a limited time cheap download or something similar but the ultimate goal should be to develop the emotional connection and turn that buyer into a real fan - someone who thinks your music is actually worth paying for. i.e Use cheap pricing in a similar way as free promotional downloads - to create demand, stay visible, attract an audience - but the ultimate goal is to get fans to fork out $8 - $10 or so for a whole album, not $2. Lil Wayne gave away albums worth of free music in order to develop anticipation for Tha Carter III which is being sold for approx $10, not $2, and moved       1 000 000 units in its first week.

Labels and indies should absolutely experiment with variable pricing and see how their individual market and fans react in order to make the best informed decisions. The more choices for artists and consumers, the better. But I worry that lowering the bar to such a level will adversely affect the quality of music being produced, and the amount that consumers are willing to pay for music-related products.

MUSIC AS A LOSS LEADER

In a recent blog post on what seems to be a likely Amazon-Myspace deal, Lucas Gonze points out that for places like Amazon, digital music is a loss leader because the margins aren’t really that profitable.

“I’m skeptical that downloads will ever be a non-trivial revenue source for Myspace. The margins are too low.

Amazon itself doesn’t make anything on them; it makes money on downloads by using them to attract shoppers, and then upselling products with a real margin. For example, a user will click into Amazon to buy a download, see a recommendation for an MP3 player, and buy the MP3 player.

So if Amazon has a hard time making money on music priced a little below iTunes standard pricing, how can downloads priced at a fraction of the cost be profitable for indie labels and musicians?

Applying the concept of loss leaders that Lucas mentions here, it logically requires that the download is then just the gateway to other products that the musician will be selling for more money - concert tickets perhaps? Merchandise? These are probably the most common supplemental sales, but the fact of the matter is that the digital song is the most viable sale - possibly the cheapest and easiest to manufacture and distribute. The cost is unaffected by geography, unlike concert tickets where an artist has to physically be somewhere and must pay for his/her travel expenses and that of the band. So I’m not seeing how cheap downloads as a loss leader would really work for the individual artist or small label. I can see cutting the cost of a particular track or album in order to provide the gateway to buy other albums at a higher cost but I just don’t see how a viable business for indies can be made from cut-price downloads.

This morning I just read an article by Kavit Haria on InnerRhythm.org discussing a similar topic. Kavit takes a similar view to Bob: “it is no longer about how much people should pay for your music; it is about getting your music into the hands of as many people as possible.” While this may be true - the monetization has to come from somewhere and again, the struggle for indies IS getting it to as many people as possibleand I don’t think price in itself is the barrier.

I’d like to see some further exploration of other realistic revenue streams, or “upsells” that indie artists can pursue, especially if they plan on taking the tactic of making their music sales a loss leader. Feedback is always welcome. As always I’d love to hear from bands and labels who may be experimenting with these ideas and have real-life experiences to share.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

So this is proof that the internet can work for some artists, but the common denominator in these, and other examples, is that it didn’t happen overnight. We’re talking months and years of consistent action and online networking in order to create the critical mass of online buzz needed to garner real attention. As I emphasised in my post on common Myths and Mistakes in Online Music Marketing, a digital strategy has to have a short and long term - it’s not a fast-track to instant success and I think this is where a lot of artists go wrong. This applies offline as well, but you have to be in it for the long haul and have a plan that makes best use of the tools available.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

So it made me very happy to see what Lucas Gonze has been working on with his own music. He has created a dedicated page for a song “Frog In The Well” which adds a tremendous amount of context and value. There’s video as well as audio files, blog posts, sheet music, and background info. This is smart from several points of view and I’d love to see more artists doing this:

1) Additional SEO-able content for your site

2) With the addition of comments, you can create community around one song and further engage your audience.

3) Adding all this value for one song adds an additional emotional appeal to your music. Not only can fans see the amount of care and attention that has been invested on the part of the artist but it broadens their experience of the song and their emotional attachment to it.

4) By using a Creative Commons license and encouraging derivations, the life of the song is extended.

These are just some of the benefits of this type of song - enhancement and I look forward to see what Lucas and other artists will continue to do with this type of experiment.

If you are an artist and are doing something similar, or implement a similar method to Lucas, feel free to drop me a line.

Lucas has also taken this concept a step further and published on his blog a manifesto for the song page which includes ideas for structured implementation of this concept. I highly recommend reading this

Bookmark It