At New Music Strategies, we’ve been thinking about an idea that we believe would be really helpful for music marketing, would contribute toward ethical and sustainable practices for musicians and music businesses, and which we believe consumers would get behind.
We were talking this week about the fact that many people (on all sides of the digital copyright debate) speak about their relationship with music consumption as having an ethical and moral dimension.
People talk about how they like to ‘support the artist’ in certain instances – whether it’s that they are fans of a specific artist and want to see them create more works, or that they have a more general sense of obligation, gratitude or individual ethics when it comes to online music purchasing. Most people seem to be conflicted – not sure what impact their decision to download unauthorised content might have, or whether it makes any difference at all.
Some feel that there is an element of protest and ethical civil disobedience in their decision to download music released by multinational corporations, or music represented by organisations who support the disproportionate legal action against music fans. Some artists are known to be in an exploitative relationship with the record label and wouldn’t necessarily get paid anyway. And it’s even more complicated than that too, when you consider the treatment of contributing (but not featured) artists, sustainable use of materials in manufacture – and the durations and conditions within contracts that may be considered unfair.
So we came up with the notion of Fair Trade Music.
The idea
We thought it would be interesting to develop and implement an online benchmarking process that would set a series of criteria up as representing ethical, sustainable music industry practices that parallel the ethical trading standards set by Fair Trade grocery items. We thought it would be important to make it so that consumers had the opportunity to easily choose Fair Trade alternatives, just as there are Organic Food sections in supermarkets.
We would love to see a Fair Trade Music section in Amazon and on iTunes as well as elsewhere online and off. We believe that just as they do with Fairtrade groceries, consumers would be encouraged to consider the practices that support the music that they buy, and make decisions informed by those practices.
Fair trade music need not necessarily be more expensive – in fact, it may actually be cheaper than the alternatives, but they would represent not just a better deal for the featured artist, but a more sustainable and less exploitative music industry overall.
We do not pretend to know or have a grasp of all of the criteria that would ideally be included as part of the benchmarking process. We think that would need to be negotiated amongst all interested parties, and conducted as part of a proper research project.
Our idea was to consult with a range of consumers, musicians and music industry workers to try and ascertain what those criteria would be for Fair Trade in the music sector – whether it be that record label deals offered artists a particular split of the proceeds, that contracts were only of a certain duration, that artists had a certain degree of creative control unfettered by commercial imperatives, that CD covers were made of renewable resources… stuff like that.
The plan
Stage one would be to figure out the parameters. What exactly would constitute ‘Fair Trade’ in music releases? In live music events? That’s the research phase.
Stage two would be to design and implement the database and registration process as well as a way in which the labelling could be implemented. This would be the prototype phase.
Stage three would be to promote and ensure its adoption. This is the implementation phase.
Partnering possibilities
There are a number of organisations that we think would perhaps be interested in exploring these ideas – from organisations that represent the interests of musicians to consumer information groups, universities and music schools, creative industry business groups and so on. We’d like to talk to the Fair Trade organisation itself too. Word has it that they’ve given thought to music, though I suspect in a slightly different way.
We believe that the system would act as a great marketing tool for genuinely ethical music producers and labels, an incentive for music companies that come close to the benchmark to go that extra mile, and an extra incentive for music purchasers (as well as some clarity and transparency about where their money will go).
Our idea is to develop the benchmarking system and online registration, pitch the idea to online (and offline) retailers, but create the register as an open database of music releases (and possibly even live music promoters and events) that fall under the Fair Trade music banner.
We do not wish to set up a new retail outlet to compete with existing offerings, but rather establish an open system for marking music that does get sold in existing retailers as offering an ethical music purchasing choice.
This would enable consumers to make informed choices about where their money goes, and would encourage record labels who wish for their releases to be considered fair trade as a marketing strategy to have transparent and sustainable agreements with the artists they release.
Just thinking out loud here. We’d love to hear your thoughts about this, and look forward to the conversation that follows.
Download Andrew Dubber's new book Music in the Digital Age - or, if you already have and you've been enjoying it or finding it useful, please consider paying for it here.
Tagged: Fair trade
No Trackbacks
27 Comments
I think this is a brilliant idea. Although, one question that popped up was how you’d mark the labels who might do both “fair trade” and “normal” deals? Would it then be marked per release?
I was just thinking that “big stars” signed to major labels might have “fair trade” deals because they have a lot of bargaining power, whilst newer acts sign to bigger labels usually don’t.
I wonder if a lot of friction would arise from that situation between a label and the roster they have, because I can imagine acts not having a “fair trade deal” might get a bit pissed off.
Just thinking out loud here… the idea is brilliant and I personally believe it is needed.
I imagine that’d be on a case by case basis – and hopefully encourage the people who give both sorts of deals to consider only giving one sort.
Might have to think about an alternative to the phrase “Fair Trade” just for the sake of trademarks – but that captures the concept reasonably nicely, so it’s good to use it just by way of explanation in the meantime…
Smart idea… Just yesterday I wrote on Facebook, whether or not we can treat musicians better – just like the way we do with the working people behind fair trade coffee products.
I think that this concept can work, if we manage to create similar rules for the music industry as the rules of fair trade:
(1) sustainability
(2) self-determined decisions
(3) stable minimum prices
(4) fair revenue sharing
(5) market access
(6) environmentally friendly
(7) funding
(8) good working conditions
regards,
Juergen
A beautiful idea and a superb model. Kudos for recognizing the need for research, and I hope there’s some funding out there for getting good data. I would expect the research to indicate where there’s room for growth in every area from revenue to gender/cultural diversity to working conditions. Fair trade retailers and venues that support sustainability — very wise indeed. And the campaign to change perceptions and behaviors to retailers, venues and fans as well would be a beautiful thing to watch. Let us know on how it’s going and where you’ll need support.
http://www.gogoyoko.com/ is a scandinavian online music store that focuses on the Fair Trade model. You might want to take a look at that.
That said, Gogoyoko is a shop. What we’re talking about here is a kitemark that is independent of the store. Regardless of where the release is sold, the music is identified as ‘fair trade’ (or whatever phrase ends up being used).
As we mention in the post, we’re not interested in replacing or competing with online stores. We’re interested in setting an industry-wide standard for what constitutes ethical practice.
Yes, I understand that. I just wanted to point Gogoyoko out to strengthen the fact that you guys are not alone in the fight for fair trade in the music business. :)
Really cool idea. If you could track back where money is going and how much is going where that could only be a good thing for consumers.
Education that could facilitate smart purchasing choices. Interested to see where this goes. Happy to help in any way.
Fairtrade music. Of course – it’s a no brainer. I know this has to be couched in adacemic language in order to attract research funding in these straitened times. But personally I’d also like to see a version of this proposal really bolied down to its essence. One side of A4 in large print. A simple proposition that we all can hit consumers and industry with, in one clean knockout punch.
For me, it comes down to the revenue percentage pura and simple. If I pay £5 to see a London club gig and £4 a pint while I’m there, what percentage of that will go to the people making the music? If I buy a physical CD from Amazon, CDbaby or Bandcamp, what percentage of the price will go to the creators of the music. Traditionally back in the days when we used to pay £10-15 for an album in a shop, at least 90% of that price went to people OTHER than the creators of the music.
One could simply research what an achievable, realistic percentage point for the creator to expect would be – in which the retailer, distributor, label and creator could all get enough of the pie for the whole process to be viable. The percentage would have to be of the money left after costs. The costs would have to be transparent and declared.
if this is too nebulous, or if there are too many variables, then how about a 1-10 RATING system. Gig tickets, discs and download sites could proudly public the logo with a prominent number. “10″ would mean 100% of the price (minus paypal/credit card fees and government VAT) going to the creators – as in a direct download from an artist’s own website. The average major label product would probably get a rating of “1″. Sounds about right to me…
This is an amazing idea. I am launching a record label in the next six months and I have been researching typical label and publishing deals. The record industry has been so skewed away from musicians for so long that it’s almost impossible to figure out what the fair numbers would be! it’s not enough just to make a commitment to treat artists fairly– every industry standard as it exists stands against you.
I would love to see benchmarks on deals, including publishing deals, that everyone agrees are fair for the musician. I would love to be an officially designated Fair Trade music label. It would help indie music labels because we could use the fact that we offer fair deals as part of our marketing strategy.
Support small business!!
Clearly, this is an idea whose time has come. In fact, it has come – welcome to the family.
In Portland, Oregon, we’ve been working towards a fair trade music model for live music in clubs for almost four years; (see website.) Although it’s for all musicians, union and non-union alike, it’s been funded and supported by the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) Local 99, the Musicians’ Union of Portland, OR.
There’s been some fair trade music activity in Europe, that also deals with recorded music. Couldn’t find a link, but they’re been on our radar for a while.
as well as this site, stateside:
http://www.fairtrade-music.com/
Holla! We’d love to share war stories.
Jake Pegg, Coordinator, fair trade music pdx
a campaign of AFM local 99
jake@fairtrademusicpdx.org
LOL! you cant be serious??? ridiculous idea music isnt a product anymore — or is it a creative outlet manifested as a product eg vinyl or cd (barley). Now its just 1′s and 0′s so its actually invisible and seen by the consumer as a free-for-all, disposable for that matter… Blogs get releases leaked before the dinosaur labels get em out because the artist is desperate for the xposure and to feed themselves.
Music is dead now the only way an artist can actually make money is Using music to support:
1. Touring
2. “their djing career”
3. Merchandise
A romantic, quaint notion of a totally un-sustainable business model maybe thats why you are all academics and not actually on the frontline trying hard to sell artists and keep the industry alive.
@Simon Grant: Well simon not all of us look as cool in leather jackets as you do. LOL
Why you attacking these guys? They make many of the same points you do.
also, it’s awfully divisive and unproductive to separate people into “academics” and those of us on the “frontline.” we all love music and would like to figure out a way to do it for a living, not a killing.
Great idea, I remember trying to make the fair trade argument a couple of years ago and being shot down in flames as someone with a “sense of entitlement” for wanting to be paid for what I do professionally….
In actual fact there is a campaign being run by the Musicians’ Union to bring about more fairness for the actual musicians in a similar sort of way. It’s called Music Supported Here” the videos make interesting watching.
http://www.musicsupportedhere.com/films/
@Taximezzo That sounds like a phrase I’d use, but only for people who believe that the mere act of making music entitles them to a living, rather than the opportunity to make one. Like a sculptor who makes a marble sculpture in his back yard then insists on being paid regardless of whether people wanted a sculpture in the first place. I don’t think I ever applied it to you – and my apologies if it was taken that way.
I have no problem with people wanting to be paid for what they do professionally. I’m actively in favour of it. I just happen to think that the professional relationship between artist and fan (and label, etc) has to be negotiated in a real marketplace – not merely asserted as a moral right in an ideal (and fundamentally fictional) world. But I think that the marketplace is currently skewed in ways that are not beneficial to artists, to fans, or to music as a whole – but that has far more to do with the industrial infrastructure, institutionalised exploitation, and unsustainable business practices within the music industries than it has to do with fans downloading mp3s.
“Music supported here” seems to be a very different campaign – one that simply blames technology and the filesharing activities of music fans for the financial problems of musicians. That’s not what this is about. This is about encouraging sustainable industrial practices. Eradicating exploitation. Using ecologically sound materials. That sort of thing.
We’re on the same side, though we disagree about methods. We both want things to be better for musicians. I don’t happen to think that the MU’s stance on… well… pretty much anything over the past five or six years has been helpful or progressive in terms of what’s good for musicians – and their public shrieking in favour of copyright maximisation has helped nobody but the major corporations and publishers who have been responsible for most of the exploitation of musicians over the past hundred or so years. We might differ on that point.
But – just to be clear, our suggestion about a campaign to label music that is genuinely “fair trade” is not similar to the MU’s singleminded quest for indefinite copyright extension and ever-harsher penalties for copyright infringement. But it is interested in giving people a better reason to pay for music and support music products that do not have artist exploitation built into them from the outset.
Hope that clears things up.
@Dubber,
I don’t think anyone I know feels entitled to a living in that way. The instance I was referring to was the attitude of some people who expect musicians to turn up at a gig and do it for nothing but that’s by the by…
Yes, there should be a real marketplace, but in marketplaces, both consumers and producers respect one another’s rights. If something of value is created, there is an reasonable expectation by people who enjoy or profit from that product that the creator will be compensated for their time, effort and expertise. Many artists feel that their rights aren’t respected, either by the industry or by certain consumers. I myself make most of my living from playing live or teaching, so recording is less of an issue for me personally, if other poeple were commercially exploiting my work, fair enough, but I’d want a cut.
I think you need to look a little deeper into the “Music Supported Here” campaign, and the attitude of the MU itself. Actually the MU’s opinion on technology has changed an awful lot over the last few years and continues to change with new developments and research. “Music Supported here” is supposed to be a resource for musicians that they can then join in with and have a hand in shaping. The facebook page will probably give you a better idea of that.
there is a lot of misleading information being put about. The MU’s policy is to get a fairer deal for musicians, especially grassroots ones, that is what they are paid to do. They are actually very positive about the new opportunities for musicians that technology throws up and are always encouraging musicians to go their own way and self-release.
What they are quite adamant about is that if additional revenue is being created for companies by the act of format-shifting or filesharing then the creators of the intellectual property deserve a slice and I think that that is quite fair enough. It’s my personal opinion that these big powerful companies don’t want to share any of their profits and would rather put it about that evil musicians want to clobber the consumer, which is very far from the truth.
The MU also believe that the artist should have control of their product, if it suits people to give it away free, fine, but if not they should have the choice. I think that that as an ideal is also fair enough.
As for copyright extension, I know less about that but I think it mostly refers to performers rather than songwriters (who get a copyright term of life plus 70 years anyway) The thinking behind it is that when the idea was first conceived, copyright was never supposed to run out in the performer’s lifetime. Life expectancy has increased, and it was being found that this valuable income stream was drying up just when musicians retired and needed it more than ever.
As we are both aware, musicians are very rarely paid in a way that reflects their level of expertise, making it harder for them to invest in a decent pension and all the copyright extension does is to bring us into line with the rest of Europe.
The directive also contains a “use it or lose it clause” ie. if the labels sit on the recordings without making them commercially available, the artists can release it themselves. In addition the artists also do not have to pay back unrecouped advances under the extended term. I think that both of these things represent a victory for musicians over expoitative and uncooperative labels
You are quite right in that many labels exploit artists horribly, but contract terms and conditions are a separate issue from the ones surrounding copyright itself as many artists that do not have any dealings with publishers or record labels are still affected by people wanting to “stick it to the man” or even worse, by companies that quietly benefit from musicians’ work without due compensation.
As an aside, many people do not understand the way the MU works. It is essentially very large musicians’ collective with many of the important issues being discussed by volunteer committees of ordinary working musicians (of which I am one). It’s a model that I believe in and means that the official policy can and does change very rapidly in response to members’ experiences and concerns. It is a shame that many musicians, and some members themselves, do not realise this and do not take the chance to get their voice heard. But hey, all I can do is encourage people to do just that.
Hope that helps the discussion.
discussed this on the weekend with @orsii and she asked me to comment. don’t really want to go into a long debate but i struggle to see this working unless it is in a direct 2 fan approach only via an independent artist/label store.
key issues to take the record to traditional physical and digital retail are:
copyright ownership (who?)
marketing spend (recoupable?)
competing in the marketplace (dealer price/retail discount/retail packs/promotion/advertising)
feels to me like this would only hinder independents against the power of the major labels market share, where they are struggling already
consumers/file sharers don’t care about supporting artists they want good music and content. if they like the product/music/merch/bundle enough based on its quality they will buy it, or steal it. additional unique content can help this to target true music fans. the majority of people are casual music consumers and so the sticker probably wouldn’t be a factor. if you ever managed to work out a system to quantify it? by making artists demand a certain deal they will only limit the marketing spend of the indie, if they offer any at all?
the deal the artist negotiates with the label they work with or if they fund the product themselves is down to their business savvy. have guidelines to good deals, advice and educate artists of existing revenue streams/registrations so they are aware of what deal they should be signing. it isn’t coffee. there are too many routes to market to control deals with a blanket agreement. maybe an artist needs to release music and based on that success be able to negotiate a better deal.
this is a bit of a stream of ideas from me so might go off point slightly but this issue has so many different hurdles to get over it has overwhelmed me, i wouldn’t know where to start
Happy about a kitemark that infers ‘fair trade’ which sanctions product sold by and benefiting a rich musician? Having trouble deciding what means ‘rich’? (maybe anything more than two grand a year, which is the average world wage) Willing to have the whole production process come under scrutiny, as in government funding grants? Ready to exclude any product which utilises the online distribution giants who fleece music creators?
No. Yes. No. Yes.
Sounds… divisive. If you allow that musicians have the least choice in the creation to consumption relationship, economically speaking.
Which we do.
I’m not sure, at all, if there are enough common assumptions about ‘ethical’ music making to remove the diktat quality. Paul Simon made a perfectly reasonable, and wrong in my view, argument, for playing Sun City. He certainly wouldn’t have received the ethical kitemark by the standards of the day. I could make a similarly reasonable argument for an artist to sign, record and release with any of the major labels.
Finally, how many people care enough about how a track was made and released not to buy it if they hear it on a sunny day and it moves them?
Apologies for the negativity but I struggle to see the point.
@Tom Robinson:
Nice comment Tom. As an independent artist and label owner myself ( functioning under the D.I.Y. model of course ), I lean toward the importance of educating the consumer as to what part of the money actually goes to the artist. Educating the artist also isn’t such a bad idea. It’s astonishing the percentage of artist still chasing a major label deal due to lack of knowledge alone. Even this many years after the New Artist Model was presented we still have artist out there who have absolutely no clue.
Let it be said again: This is a brilliant idea. I’d be more than willing to reintroduce my label and my budding solo career as a fully functioning artist/label that’s a representive of this type of set-up. As of now it seems a logical alternative within an industry that seems to only be getting worse giving the state of the economy. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.
I like it. Was disappointed to see that the US site mentioned by @Jake Pegg is currently closed, although “For an appropriate fee we can conduct workshops, speak at Seminars and provide Internet Business Consultancy services for you.” !
While I’m sure there are plenty of people who just don’t care, there are also fans who want to help support artists but need help figuring out the best way to do so. Properly implemented, fair trade music could do just that.
For partnering possibilities in the US, you may want to look at the Future of Music Coalition: futureofmusic.org — an advocacy organization for musicians. They hold a Future of Music Policy Summit each year that is co-hosted by Georgetown University, and are currently conducting research on changes in artist revenue streams.
The survey closes at the end of October, if you want to participate, go here:
http://futureofmusic.org/article/research/artist-revenue-streams
Actually, @Simon Grant:, I am not academic. I am a working musician and part-time organizer.
I work to keep the music alive. I don’t even know what “The Industry” means any more, other than a constantly shifting mess of websites and new technologies designed to make money from artists and give as little back, if anything, as possible. (Spotify comes to mind.)
You are correct to mention artists desperate for exposure. However, to equate that with feeding themselves is inherently contradictory. Performing or leaking product “For Exposure” implies that it’s being done for low or no money. One cannot subsist on exposure alone, which is why it it an insidious, usually duplicitous means of persuading artists to devalue themselves – and all other artists in the market.
@David D.: Apologies, I listed the wrong website. http://fairtrademusicpdx.org is alive and well.
@ Jake Pegg, as one of my friends is very fond of saying, “people die of exposure!”
xxx
It is a great idea and I will be following you to find out how it goes.
I will be following this as well.