Director of Music Production
Townhouse
What lessons have you learned from 2021 that you will apply to 2022 and/or what processes and practices necessitated by the pandemic will continue even when the pandemic is (hopefully) over? (Remote work, use of Zoom enabling more people to be involved in the creative approval process, etc.)
Working remotely has, in an unexpected way, helped foster stronger relationships with many co-workers and external partners/composers. The rise of video calls (in place of the dial in conference calls of old) places a priority on being present and checking in with others. In the regular pre-pandemic workplace (the hustle and bustle) sometimes those moments of connection were taken for granted, and people misconstrued proximity for connection. The past two years have been a reminder that conscious collaboration can close any physical gaps and produce outstanding work.
A growing number of superstar artists and songwriters have been selling their music rights/catalogs in megabuck deals. What will be the ripple effect of this on music creatively and from a business standpoint relative to the advertising, film, TV and streaming platform markets?
It’s a win/win. These deals allow the artist to earn more than they could in their lifetime, and allow the publisher who made the purchase to recoup more than they paid in theirs. In an effort to achieve the latter I think we will likely see an increase in advertising syncs for some tracks that were previously seen as unattainable.
Google Opens Its Defense In Antitrust Case Alleging Monopoly Over Online Ad Technology
Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.
"The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years," said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company's first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.
The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.
Google counters that the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google's lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.
Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.
Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.
The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent... Read More