The music industry is admittedly not my wheelhouse, but an undeniably creative video, released yesterday by Coldplay, has highlighted a conflict that lies within the creation of promotional content: to what does the content owe its principal allegiance? In this case we have a marvelously impressive creative visual production (CGI heavy as it is), ostensibly produced to promote a song. If the core consideration is the song, however, it is arguable whether the video is doing it good service. Then again, if the song were abysmal, no amount of production sophistication could help. So, what role do music videos play today? Are they supposed to principally increase sales of the song, raise consumer awareness of the musician, or win awards and the media coverage that (sometimes) comes therewith? Is there some other purpose (such as simply generating buzz for the director, sufficient to springboard them into a commercial or feature career)?

Obviously, different music videos have different objectives, but I would posit that a core goal ought to be either to increase fandom (and purchase) for the song itself, or to increase viewer investment in the musician, sufficient to garner increased sales – be they merchandise, concert, or content. Maroon 5 achieved the former with their video for “Sugar”, while also generating a good deal of buzz for their inventive approach. Sia achieved the latter with her video for “Elastic Heart”. Taylor Swift’s “Bad Blood” achieved both, I would argue (and the sales numbers corroborate that claim). I have long championed the videos of FKA Twigs, which establish the artist firmly as the lost love child of Madonna and Bjork. Indeed, there exist a number of compelling music videos that successfully compel the viewer to either buy the song or follow the artist more enthusiastically.

What, however, do Coldplay’s videos (or those by OK GO, for that matter) accomplish, extant high YouTube views? Obviously, those who never liked the music might claim they mitigate an otherwise painful audio experience, but a massive investment in a music video is not going to sell the song or musician to someone who hates the music. Nobody suddenly became a new fan of U2’s after watching the video for “Numb”. If you didn’t love Christina Aguilera before, watching her embarrassing Lady Gaga copycat for ‘Not Myself Tonight’ was not going to endear her to you. Then again, Lady Gaga did herself no favors with her Madonna copycat for the forgettable “Judas”. So where’s the value?

After watching Coldplay’s recent video for “Up & Up” (the third single from their last album, “A Head Full Of Dreams”), I barely remembered the song, and I notice that all the online comments are about the video, with nary a word about the song or musicians.

Securing viewers of content on YouTube is a tough challenge these days, with the vast majority being relegated swiftly to burst traffic. It stands to reason, therefore, that content posted to online video aggregation sites such as YouTube, Vimeo, (arguably) Facebook, and soon Amazon Video Direct, needs to be compelling enough to merit swift and sustained viewership, but at what cost, and with what intended outcome? Content production without strategic context will rarely return satisfactory value. People will notice something attractive, but to what end? If that is the goal, kudos. Music videos are supposed to promote further action on the part of the viewer, though, aren’t they? Is clicking “Like” or “Share” enough, these days?

With the recent news that Motorola won a sales and  import ban against Microsoft in Germany (effectively removing Microsoft Xbox and Windows 7 products from that market), and is poised to repeat the ban here in the US, the circle is complete.

Rewind

Video and Audio Compression technologies have been developed by a host of companies over the past decades, and the result is a somewhat murky product development pipeline requiring patent licensing and cross licensing deals, the likes of which would make an LA freeway interchange look like a lonely unpaved road through the dustbowl. Add to this the fact that IP&L (Intellectual Property & Licensing) is the cash cow of many technology giants, and the prevailing practice is to develop patents for everything that can be thus recorded, in the hopes that there may exist licensing revenues somewhere in the future. These are the given circumstances for the present dance featuring Microsoft and Motorola Mobility (now under Google’s wing).

Battle Lines

As is often the case, much sabre-rattling has been going on, and clashes in court have ensued. Each side hoped that, when the dust settled, they would emerge with the upper hand. Nobody expected to outright win, but that’s not what IP conflicts are about, when the licensing giants are engaged in battle. It always looks terribly bloody and violent, and enormous (to us) sums of money are dispensed via legal teams. However, these sums are paltry, when compared to the licensing sums at stake. What’s a million or two, when one stands to gain tens and even hundreds of millions?

However, in this particular case, both sides gained and both sides lost, and now it falls to the lawyers and IP negotiators to assess where the bargaining chips have fallen, before progressing with the next stage of battle: the truce.

All In A Day’s Work

Motorola made a valiant effort to push Microsoft back on to its heels, successfully getting the tech giant kinda-sorta booted out of Deutschland (of course, it’s never quite so cut and dried). The company, recently acquired by Google, further strengthened their position when the ITC threatened Microsoft with major market restrictions and penalties in the US.

In the meantime, Microsoft successfully attacked Motorola’s flank, when the ITC ruled in its favor, on another licensing issue (another related article here).

Now that both camps hold trophies, they could either choose to continue attacking one another, if they believed more trophies were in the offing, or they could begin the next phase of a process all too familiar to large tech companies today: negotiation of a cross-licensing truce.

Instead of negotiating from the outset in good faith, companies today have discovered that negotiation under duress, even if that duress is mutual, tends to deliver greater savings. I’m not sure I believe it anymore, but the trend is to sue until the pot is sweet enough to settle.

As far as the Microsoft/Motorola Mobility clash is concerned, this could be a good time to trade trophies, and settle on a cross-licensing agreement that would allow both companies to get on with the business of selling their products to consumers (albeit at a slightly increased price point, necessary to cover their legal costs). However, now that Google has just purchased Motorola Mobility, the search-and-everything-else giant may opt to bloody its bitter rival a little more, and Motorola Mobility product sales may become collateral damage in the even larger battle between Redmond and Mountain View.

It would all be rather silly, were it not for the millions of dollars, hundreds of jobs, and possible legal precedents at stake…

Enhanced by Zemanta