Upcoming event: Singapore Music Dialogue on 8 Sept 2012

The full transcript from Stuart Johnston's opening remarks at the Forum in Jan:

"Back in the 70s, living next to the USA, Canada has long-suffered an inferiority complex. So Canadians for some reason always seem the need to be validated. We can have tremendously successful people in Canada but it doesn’t matter unless they make it in the USA. We have tremendous talent in the cities of Canada, but they have to make it in LA, NY, Nashville, be big around the world; and then they come home to become successful. Back in the 70s, we could not hear Canadian music on the radio. There were a handful of great music industry professionals in the independent sector in Canada and they decided that they needed to take matters in their own hands. And there is strength in numbers, thats why associations, that's why industries can become very powerful - they can literally move mountains.

So they were up against broadcasters, music producers, record companies that were controlling the product, controlling what was being played and of course, if it was a successful American or British act, thats what was being played on the radio. Sure, great music but we liked to hear some of our own stuff. So they formed an association to primarily become advocates for that sector. So the association went to the government and lobbied quite hard for regulations that resulted in that Canadian content rules. It started off at 20% (and its now mandated that broadcaster must play 35% Canadian music). Once approved, this wasn’t an overnight success. The association members then looked at each other and noticed that there wasn’t enough catalogue of decent quality. So the rules came in first and then the association suggested funding support and raise the music industry to provide the level of financial resources and tax structure to support Artists, managers and labels. So there were funding opportunities that came up such as broadcasters were mandated to put a percentage of their gross revenues and 6% of license fees into a fund that then got pumped back into Canadian-owned, Canadian Artists. The funding support for the association went across all areas such as production, videos, marketing, promotion, touring, showcases, etc.

And this is why we saw such as explosion of great acts in the 70s and 80s because there was this foundation of support that would not have happened if the industry didn’t take it upon themselves to speak with one voice and say this is what we need to be successful. Thats the legacy."

Hence why SGMUSO was born.

During the last interview with Graham Perkins, the brainchild behind the Singapore Music Society gave his advice to local musicians: The world is your "Chilli Crab". Come 8 Sept, he is organizing a free dialogue session for everyone to come together to discuss how the Society should improve the local music scene. Some of the issues on the agenda include:

Skills - Education programs in the areas of Artistry, Business and Production
Advocacy - Digital, Media and Live Performance Related Programs
Opportunities - Overseas events

For details of the event, click here.

Looking forward to it. See you there.

COMPASS CEO says, "It's almost impossible to monetize music from new media."

During the 90-minute interview with Dr Edmund Lam, CEO of The Composers and Authors Society of Singapore (COMPASS), he was candid and forthcoming. As much as one hopes that a successful and more equitable business model will eventually emerge to monetize music in the new media age, he has seen a fair share of hopefuls that came and left the market, and what remains now are existing models that are still require improvement in many areas.

"It's almost impossible to monetize music from new media," he says. "But what new media has done is to provide more access for consumers to discover different types of music, which will encourage more artists to come to Singapore for live performances. New media has also helped artists save on marketing costs.”

                                         Dr Edmund Lam, CEO of COMPASS

Indeed, how artists and publishers earn their keep has continuously been a challenge, and Dr Lam shares how COMPASS, playing the role of Singapore’s sole copyright administrator, has evolved over time. He also talks about what he thinks will be the future of the music industry in Singapore.

Q: Based on COMPASS’s experience, what have been the best sources of royalties and other revenue in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s? Has this changed over the years?

The bulk of the current copyright law is based on the 1989 Copyright Act and prior to (that) was the Imperial Copyright Act dated back in 1911. When the Copyright Act in 1989 was passed, COMPASS started around the same period, although we had not started administration then. Prior to that there was the Performing Rights Society, a subsidiary of the Performing Rights Society in UK has been operating here for a number of years based on the Imperial Copyright Act, but that Act granted limited rights to music writers. It was only applicable to situations where live music was performed; so the British Agency only licensed pubs, nightclubs and the like. But the new Copyright Act was a fundamental change, because overnight, it granted a number rights to creators and our composers, and that gave us a room to start our business and COMPASS commenced operations in 1991.

One of the most important rights then was the Broadcast right, which upset the radio and TV stations because they had to pay royalties to COMPASS, so there was a Copyright Tribunal. Under the Copyright law, there is a provisional section that allows a dispute between a collective management organization like COMPASS and the user to have the tariff arbitrated. And that was the first Copyright Tribunal hearing. Unfortunately, the decision from the Copyright Tribunal hearing in 1991 did not grant us attractive rates for traditional broadcast, but that was how we started our operations, and the revenue comes from TV and radio stations, which provided an unprecedented source of revenue. Back then, the users were upset, but over the years, we built up a very good relationship with the radio and TV stations and they do play a part: we sponsor programs and we jointly organize programs to promote the music industry. So the relationship has changed quite dramatically over the years. Now, traditional media understand and appreciate the need to compensate music writers for using the intellectual property of the songs, because without those songs, they wouldn’t have existed.

Resolving with the major broadcast stations was a major establishment in the 1990s; and the other was the licensing of live concerts, and the breakthrough came only in 1993 when Michael Jackson had a big concert for 3 nights at the National Stadium. Tickets were priced at over a hundred dollars each. The organizers of the concert refused to pay because he claimed that Michael Jackson had granted him all (musical) rights, and because of that dispute we had another major case heard at the Tribunal, which was covered by the media daily. It was a tough fight, but COMPASS won at the end of the day. The Tribunal agreed to the rate we have established at 2.5% of gross ticket sales, which translated to quite a sum for the Michael Jackson concert, estimating to be about over a million dollars. After this case, revenue flows included those from live concerts. After Michael Jackson’s concert, there was also a booming trend in live concerts, and even today, live concerts by major artists are on the rise, and this source of revenue has not diminished over the years. (Revenue from) broadcasting has also not declined over the years, but they faced competition from cable TV, which has also become our major source of income since 1995-6.

Traditional broadcast (radio and TV), live concerts and cable TV have become major revenues of COMPASS until today. In addition, the other major revenue source is from the entertainment industry – we managed to penetrate nightclubs, karaoke operators (karaoke is something probably only common in Asia), and so composers who compose songs that people like to sing in karaoke will earn more royalties.

In the late 1990s-2000s, there was a rise of the popularity of ringtones. COMPASS does not normally administer mechanical rights (reproduction rights) of a musical work. COMPASS started off with performing rights (i.e. broadcast rights/ live performance rights), and in the olden days of CD printing, COMPASS has historically not been involved in that line of business. The publishers themselves administer that particular right. So a composer will assign the musical rights to the Society but he will negotiate with the publishers to have his or her work to be recorded in a CD (sound recording) and this mechanical right is being administered by the publisher themselves, which was then licensed to the music labels for retail sales. But as we grow more established, we started to represent more independent writers who assigned those rights to us to administer. There was a short boom in ringtone, however the collections were not that attractive, because a ringtone supplier needed two licenses: one from COMPASS, which is a Communication right that we grant to them (when a ringtone supplier communicates to a handphone user, he requires this license from COMPASS). On the other hand, after the phone user receives the signal and makes a copy of it, that copy requires a reproduction right and requires a license from the publishers, and COMPASS does not have all the rights in this area. Some service providers took advantage of the confusion and did not pay the royalties. So although the ringtone business was doing very well (selling $1 each at its peak), we could only charge about 6-7 cents against a dollar, which translated into about $1-2 million of royalties out of a $20-30 million dollar ringtone business in Singapore. We didn’t manage to get much out of it because of the confusion, but in the end we all came together, because the publishers realized that it would be better to do it collectively, for the convenience of users. But by the time we got our act together, the ringtone business already went down. So the music industry was a little slow, and we couldn’t see the opportunity in time and was unable to catch up with trends quickly.

Q: What were some of the business models that worked or did not work for the music industry and why?

Similarly, for new upcoming business models, there’s some disunity amongst the different stakeholders in the industry, but hopefully we can get our act together to license the music to service providers. However, we realize it’s quite a challenging business because the Singaporean consumer does not purchase on a song-by-song basis. Consumers do not bite when you offer them $1 or $0.80 per song, as compared with markets in US, Japan and Australia.

One of them that failed was Soundbuzz, as the per-download model did not take off in Singapore. The telcos had the upperhand because they owned the platforms.  So some of them wanted a 50% margin if music was to be retailed through their platforms. Later, when the buffet-styled eat-all-you-can models was launched, it took off but in the process, music has become worthless. Nokia’s Comes With Music (product bundling model) also pulled out, because music has become too cheap and in the end we all don’t make any money.

The iTunes music service is not available in Singapore yet, but even if they launched it here, it will be very challenging for it to sustain because from the experience of the Nokia’s Come with Music business model, they used music not to make money but to use music to sell the phones. After they launched the service, Singaporeans downloaded several millions of songs but only for that small amount of money.

I think it is almost impossible to monetize music from new media. But what new media has done is to provide more access for consumers to discover different types of music, which will encourage more artists to come to Singapore for live performances. New media has also helped artists save on marketing costs. If you look at it broadly, artists can now promote their works more easily through YouTube and digital media. I observe that the cost of marketing Lady Gaga would be lower than marketing the Beatles, because with digital media, overnight, everyone will know about Lady Gaga, say in South Korea whereas in the past it would have taken months. Everything that happens now is instant and news spreads instantly. Marketing through new media is very massive and cheap. The labels and recording industry don’t benefit from all this, it’s more of the concert promoters and artistes themselves who are actually making the money now.

People are spending on music in a different way. People are willing to spend money on concerts to have a live experience and you’ll see the same artists coming back. One concert ticket is over a hundred dollars, and that, in the past, is worth 6-7 CD albums a years, so an average person is definitely spending more in music. Executives spend more time in bars, and more at karaoke sessions to have some kind of musical experience, as compared to previously.

Q: Could you elaborate more about COMPASS’s partnership with Youtube?

The license granted to YouTube is based on revenue collected from advertising. YouTube is also a place for our members to promote their works. More importantly, our license with Singapore YouTube allows the setting up of a Singapore domain. That’s the main motivation. We want YouTube to have a Singapore domain so we can track what kind of music and videos that Singaporeans or people in Singapore are viewing.

Q: What do you think would be the future of the music industry be like in Singapore?

In recent years, Opennet, the new generation of broadband, has started to roll out. It allows high quality streaming, which will connect our TV to all other devices in our homes. Once this is established, there are many services that can be provided to consumers. With Opennet, I could see changes in entertainment such as Xbox. Currently there are still limitations to Xbox with regards to the number of simultaneous multi-players because of limitations of bandwidth, but with Opennet, it will change the whole entertainment business. When you watch a football match, the resolution will be extremely clear. That will transform Singapore. Not many countries will have this – optical fibre. So I would see that the next kind of devices, such as the mobile phone, will be used as the interface to Internet TVs. Internet TV has not really picked up yet, but I think it will pick up after everyone has access to optical fibre broadband, and with that you can place your phone as a remote control to view YouTube on TV. That is already possible now, but currently it is still quite a cumbersome process to set up. In future, consumers will access their music through this platform, and probably people will watch programs and music using Opennet. It will be a revolution and change everything. Traditional broadcast media will be under threat, and so will cable TV. I believe that is the future.

Q: Geographically, which markets have the most potential?

Mainland China. It is a challenging market, but they would have to use a different model. They no longer make money through selling music, but once you establish a name in China, you can find other ways to milk the market. You can probably have many live performances. Just recently, I read that Eric Moo is making a lot of money, as every day he is performing at different places for those in their 40s and grew up with his music and can afford ticket prices. So he’s not doing new music but making money from all his old music. Artists can make money through touring and advertising. China has a population of 1.3billion people, and once you get an advertising right of a product, that would be more than enough for one album.

As for touring, I was told one cycle could last 4-5 years, given the number of cities and provinces that they could cover. Market size is still very important. Despite weak IP enforcement, there is still money to be made, albeit in other ways (e.g appearance fees). And so if CCTV invites you to be on their Chinese New Year show, you’d better not ask for money, because everyone will be fighting to get on it and the bargaining power will be different. Once you do an appearance like that, the chances of clinching a product endorsement deal are very high. And that’s how the industry will be involved, rather than through recorded music. Recording good music is still important, but the revenue cannot be from the sales of music.

About COMPASS

The Composers and Authors Society of Singapore (COMPASS) is an organisation created to protect and promote the copyright interests of composers, authors* (and their heir) and publishers of musical works and their related lyrics. COMPASS is a non-profit public company which administers the public performance, broadcast, diffusion and reproduction rights in music and musical associated literary works on behalf of its members. COMPASS deals specifically with music copyright and the usage of musical works.

For more information about COMPASS, visit www.compass.org.sg

17^th COMPASS Awards

The 17th COMPASS Awards Presentation will be held on 8 July 2012, 7pm at Marina Bay Sands, Sands Grand Ballroom. Event is exclusive to members.

Perkins' advice to local artists: The World Is Your "Chilli Crab"

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges that Singaporean artists face are themselves. The country's small footprint in the global music industry, may have indirectly left an indelilble mark on the mindsets of local artists, and Graham Perkins, President of the newly set up Singapore Music Society, advises that they should try to avoid falling into the "trap of thinking small and feeling insignificant".

Graham Perkins at Digital Matters Conference

Q: What are the biggest challenges that local artists face today?

GP: I think that there are three major challenges for artists in Singapore. Firstly, to succeed in Singapore alone, is not enough. The world is the Oyster (or to put into context, the Chilli Crab) for local artists. It has often been said at many international music conferences (Music Matters included) that the next big thing can come from anywhere in the world. However, its important to get it right at home before an artist explores overseas opportunities. Singapore provides a great sandbox, to hone skills in artistry and performance to better prepare for exposure overseas. As Malcolm Gladwell says in his book, “The Outliers”,one of Gladwell’s theory is that “it takes roughly 10,000 hours of hard practice in a chosen field to become a master in that field”. Artists can see their activities at home as a major part of their 10,000 hours towards becoming great.

Secondly, there is a clear lack of exposure for local artists. With the danger of the “living in a glasshouse” syndrome, it's extremely hard for our artists to break the glass.There is only so much that happens within Singapore that can help provide the window to the world. Sure events like Music Matters will help, and we do have many visits from international artists playing here, but we don’t get the Marvin Gaye feeling of knowing “What’s Going On”.

I do think however, that this is where the government can play a part in helping artists visit other countries to feel the vibe of successful music cities, and associate with other music folk. However, visitors to overseas markets, need to be initially armed with their digital devices or notebooks, not their guitars or microphones. Being immersed within international music ecosystems, listen, connect and collaborate with others, helps to build aspiration, inspiration and more importantly, support the feeling of hope that many artists have. This will help build an artist's opportunity to prepare for export.

Thirdly, the nation’s multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-language society, potentially creates dividing lines that seem to permeate the music industry. Singapore arguably struggles with its identity and music should not be driven by this conflict. At the utmost, Music is the greater good and should transcend all these boundaries. Now I do not think that this image is actually created by artists, but more by external advocates who try to promote Singapore music styles and have a lack of knowledge to how music impacts the listener. Music is emotive and its our emotions that are at the heart of every decision we make in life. Sure, language is key to written and verbal communication but music is already its own language and the key for humanity.

Q: What are some of the biggest revenue streams for local artists?

GP: The obvious revenue streams are the traditional forms of music consumption through recording and live performances. But its clear that digital consumption has made an impact towards revenues of value. Furthermore, the lack of willingness by consumers to want to pay for art, continues to dent revenues.

Personally, I’m more excited and interested to look at how new trans-media streams can provide new opportunities and revenues as its something quite close to my heart at Rune Entertainment.

Q: How has the change in the music industry landscape affected relationships between artists and labels?

GP: These days the artist potentially is in a much stronger position.This is because the artist can get closer to their fans, develop their brandand put together great sounds even in their bedroom. I think the major labels know this and are looking at ways to change their approach and relationship with their repertoire.

Q: What kind of opportunities are there for Singaporean artists?

GP: Humongous if only artists can dream big, develop their brand and build confidence to approach international markets and new platforms for music.

Q: How can artists be discovered, groomed and developed into exportable representations in other markets?

GP: There are many ways artists can be discovered. In my view, it's important to get things right at home first. Its important that each artist explores the markets it wants to approach before it goes in blindly. Of course a main vehicle is Digital as the world has become so much more connected. An artist can create huge interest if it cleverly builds the right connections.

As to grooming and development, there really isn’t any success stories here in Singapore. Sadly, the music industry is not seen as a career choice for many due to a lack of opportunity which creates skepticism. Furthermore, education does not induce a creative nature or provide the right experience to allow creativity to flourish. I’ve seen many examples overseas (Canada, UK, USA) in which various entities provide fantastic development vehicles and success has been achieved.

Q: What is the Singapore Music Society and whatare your future plans to increase "capability, advocacy and opportunities" in Singapore's music industry? Any targets in the short and long run?

GP: The wider development of an industry can take many years so it's better to be pragmatic. I would rather focus on getting it right, than right now, and not to look for quick wins. Of course, there are various activities we can provide in the areas of education, lobbying and business opportunities, and myself and the Executive Committee will be rolling out a strategy for themembers of the Society in due course.

One area of importance is to get the nation to realise that great music can come from this isle. This can be enhanced if we simply focus on the greater good of promoting great music, not “Singaporean” or “local” music. It's given that music from here is from Singapore but advocacy is created when artists are good at what they do. It also enables a chance for the Society to drive “a land of cool” which is one of the main reasons why people like music.

Following on from a successful forum in January, we will be getting heavily involved in this year’s Music Matters for our launch. With the support of Music Matters and e2i (Employment and EmployabilityInstitute) we will be providing complimentary conference passes to 130 of our 240 members. We will be conducting five, up-close and personal Mentor Master classes and inviting all conference delegates to the Singapore Matters Cocktails. In addition to this year’s MusicMatters Live Festival, there will be 11 acts from Singapore along side many artists from nations around the world. To support digital consumption, we have partnered Singtel to provide an opportunity for acts from Singapore to have their music available on the AMPed platform.

I have a lot of work to do at the Society and I’m up for the challenge!

About Graham Perkins

Co-CEO Rune Entertainment and President Singapore Music Society

Growing up during the hippy era, Graham quickly got the bug to get out of school and pick up his guitar and play. Graham came to Asia in 1996 and has had the pleasure to continue his creative approach to life working at Adobe, Apple, MTV and Republic Polytechnic. In 2008 Graham became the Co-CEO for the trans-media studio, Rune Entertainment and continues to consult for the Singapore Government in the areas of Creative Industry skills development.

Graham has more recently set up the Singapore Music Society and as President, is helping to develop quality, advocacy andopportunities for the Singapore music industry.

About Singapore Music Society

The Singapore Music Society is a non-profit entity that supports artistry, business and production by developing skills, advocacy and opportunities. We transcend music genres, cultural and language boundaries and support the growth of the music industry both home and away.

The Record Industry in China

When I was in Secondary School, I was once offered a contract by a music publisher, but when I told Mum about my interest to join the music industry, her immediate reaction was, "玩音乐是没有前途的 (There's no prospect in joining the music industry) That was it. I never got to sign that contract but fortunately I didn't think too much about it then. Fifteen years later, as I recall her declaration, I can't help but reluctantly agree that Mum was probably right. Looking at the state of the record industry today, it's the record executives themselves who are calling it quits. During a recent Lifeweek interview with Song Ke (宋柯), the ex-AGM of Warner Music (China Region) painted a bleak picture of the Chinese record industry and shared his views for its demise.

1. Lack of a strong and cohesive ecosystem amongst the major players in the industry.

Song Ke feels that for the industry to sustain healthily, each content provider, including those from film and television, has to be able to maintain a 40% margin. In the '90s, record companies were at least able to obtain 8-12%. But today, they are struggling with less than 2%. Also, labels face the problem of a lack of negotiation power when approaching downstream e-distributors, and this problem is aggravated due to a lack of cohesiveness amongst labels themselves, resulting in a lack of standard rates to ensure the sustainability of all industry players. Song Ke himself had been lobbying for the past few years to create a united voice amongst labels to form a coalition and fight for better rates, but his repeated requests had been falling on the deaf ears of executives who merely see him as their competitor.

2. Lack of strong support from the government

Unlike film, television or the internet content industry which are multifaceted or interactive, the music industry does not seem to be able to generate the same level of buzz and media excitement, and hence there is little incentive for the Chinese government to support the industry in terms of infrastructure development or pushing for changes in legislation.

3. Lack of transparency/ dishonesty in trade dealing

In the Chinese mobile industry, Song Ke explains that the ideal business model for ringtones ("1585" service) is to have telco operators (e.g. China Mobile) receive a margin of 15%, while the remaining 85% is taken by the service provider enabler, which is to be shared equally between the enabler and the content provider (42.5% each). This model will be more equitable and sustaining. However, the common grievance from music labels is that almost all enablers are dishonest and have squeezed the share of the music labels to as low as 10%.

4. Even pirates know it better.

Song Ke laments it's ironic that even the pirate industry knows the importance of keeping a healthy 40% margin for sustainability. The cost of creating a pirate CD is about ten cents, and the typical mother who carries her child on the street to hawk pirated CDs is able to earn about $2 from the price of $5 per disc. With such an attractive margin, who would not resist?

5. Lack of innovation in the music industry

Song Ke has an interesting point of view about the lack of innovation in the music industry which has contributed to its demise. He compares this with the evolution of other media industries. In gaming, the industry has evolved from console to online; in film, movies have turned from 3D to IMAX. Such innovation has prevented pirates from keeping up. However, in the music industry, the MP3 has become accepted as the norm in place of the CD, and Song Ke considers it as a regressive and inferior format that does not improve the consumer experience. The MP3 has destroyed the need to read the lyrics. The MP3 does not allow the consumer to find joy in collecting album art. So why would the consumer want to pay a premium for an MP3? Furthermore, the MP3 format does not allow an equitable and robust business model to develop around it.

Since this blog is about the future of the music industry in Singapore and Asia, I thought it would be interesting to start off with Song Ke's pessimistic view of the music industry in China. Do you agree with his views? Is there any hope at all? Do send in your comments.