Some bars just don’t get the local music scene

Jeromey Balderrama

Right now my band is in the process of setting up shows for the summer, and today actually turned out to be a pretty good day in terms of promoting gigs (we got three new shows!).  However, one of the bars in Denver gave is this warning that they expect the band to bring in at least 50 people into their bar.  According to the bar, if they don’t think we can bring in 50 people, then maybe we should consider partnering with another band – or consider not playing there.

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this, and while I do understand the intention of a bar owner saying this, the impression couldn’t be any more damaging to both sides.

I understand why bar owners say this: they want you to take your performing there seriously.  It’s not good enough to just show up and play your set, you need to go out and promote for the show.  You need to make an effort to get your fans to come out to their bar, and you need to ultimately help the bar bring in money.  The incorporation of live music in their venue is a business decision to drive people into their bar.  Lazy bands that don’t draw a crowd don’t contribute to their bottom line.

At the same time, this puts new and establishing bands in a very tough position.  While we have a strong fanbase in Northern Colorado, we’re working hard to build a fanbase in Denver.  We’re working hard through every channel available to us, but if you’re not playing shows in Denver, how can you expect to start drawing a crowd there?  It’s a “chicken & the egg” type of problem. 

From a musician’s standpoint, it bothers me when a bar will place a quota on your band to define your success.  And in many ways it conveys an expectation that the bar expects the band to do all the work to get foot traffic in the door, and if they don’t do well that night, it’s somehow the band’s fault.  It bothers me that some bar owners think they’re doing musicians some kind of favor by letting them play there.

Both attitudes are wrong on so many levels – because it disregards the fact that the band and bar are forming a partnership to help each other succeed.  Both sides need each other: the band needs a place to play and outreach to current and potential fans, while the bar needs to bring new people in the doors, as well as use the presence of live music to draw people into their venue.   Setting goals is a good thing, providing people with tools to succeed are a good thing, but setting some kind of magic number for success only sets everyone up for failure.  So if we only bring 40 people in that night, will the venue consider us a flop?

Here are a few ideas how bands and bar-owners can capitalize on partnerships:

  • Bar owners: Give the band resources necessary to promote (give us the bar’s logo, show times, necessary information ASAP).  I’m surprised just how hard it is to get the confirmation we need to be able to promote shows.  (One time a venue never got back to us to confirm, so we couldn’t promote the show because we couldn’t guarantee the details to our fans – it turned out that they canceled the show anyway, but at least we didn’t look like idiots to our fans)
  • Musicians: Go out and promote the show – make sure that posters and fliers are posted at the venue, and at other places where there is potential audience for that bar.  Promote the venue to your fans – many might be checking out this bar for the first time.
  • Bar owners: If you have a band that is relatively new, pair them up with a band that’s well established, with a similar sound.  That way if the fans enjoy the opening act, they may also become fans of them as well – thus adding to their fanbase.
  • Musicians: Work hard – and bar owners: acknowledge that hard work.  I’ve seen a lot of live music, and it’s easy to tell who has a good work ethic, and who is looking for hand-outs.

Bottom line – both sides need to help set each other up for success, and ultimately support each other.

 

Technorati tags: music promotion, local music scene, bands

ESPN does podcasting right (but also wrong)

Jeromey Balderrama

In the 1 & 1/2 years of regularly listening to podcasts, I’ve probably gone through about 50-60 different shows during that time.  Each day I have 3-5 podcasts in my “can’t miss” category, where I go out of my way to listen to.  Of those 3-5, 2 of them have become ESPN podcasts.

Two things have primarily kept me interested in podcasts: 1) I can pick topics that I’m passionate about: technology, sports, drumming, music business, etc; 2) The media is portable and I can listen to it on my terms – whenever I want, wherever I want (including at work or at the gym).

The independent nature of podcasts both inspires and intrigues me, but as I listen to more podcasts, the more I appreciate hosts who are media-savvy.  While there are very intelligent and passionate people who host podcasts, many hosts just don’t have the experience and professionalism to present their media effectively. This creates an opportunity for traditional media – such as ESPN – to capitalize in podcasting.

I’m a huge PTI fan, and that is the show I’m most eager to download and listen to each day.  I won’t miss an episode of PTI.  At the same time, I only watched the show for the first time last week, and haven’t seen it since.  I can honestly attribute my interest and fandom of PTI solely to podcasting.  PTI gained me as a fan because of the ESPN PodCenter, because their show delivered the content I wanted, when & where I wanted it.  PTI gets me through the gym.  I’ve also started listening to Around the Horn as well, again because of their podcast availability.

It is through these efforts that I believe traditional media will continue to thrive in podcasting, and ultimately take podcasting to the next level.  Podcasts need PTI a lot more than PTI needs podcasts, but both can help each other succeed.  Old and new fans appreciate the different avenues to get the content they love, and large media outlets like ESPN gain more fans – just like they gained me. 

At the same time, if people who get the media through traditional methods enter podcasting through shows like PTI, they’ll discover the tip of a very big ice berg – “You there’s a show about <insert favorite topic here> out there??  Sweet!”.  It’s important for smaller podcasters not to look at these large media companies as intruders, but as partners in promoting the medium as a whole.

At the same time, traditional media conglomerates like ESPN have a lot to learn about how to deliver a podcasts.  One of my greatest annoyances has to do with their delivery of the content.  ESPN has all of their podcasts grouped on their Podcenter site, but when you go there you only have three option: Play/stream, download the mp3 and subscribe through iTunes.

Memo to large media companies new to the podcasting scene: Mix in an RSS feed that we can access.  I understand iTunes is convenient and easy for people to use, and I also suspect that ESPN’s round-robin relationship with Apple (ESPN > DISNEY > STEVE JOBS > APPLE > ITUNES) has something to do with their iTunes marriage – but all this does is further the notion that if you don’t have an iPod then you shouldn’t be listening to podcasts.  I only managed to get the PTI RSS feed by subscribing through iTunes, exporting my OPML file and importing it into my podcast downloader (see abandoning iTunes post).  It wouldn’t hurt for ESPN to use ID3 tagging for their files as well.  It’s little things like this that could make them a positive presence in the community.

Large media and independent podcasters could learn a lot from each other.  The independent podcasters can learn how to present their content effectively (and maybe talking about yourself for the first 10 minutes of the show is not a good idea), while the large media companies can learn to deliver their content effectively in this new medium.  One thing is certain – if podcasting is to become mainstream, then both side are going to have to learn to play together.

RSS easily explained ("what’s that orange icon"?)

Jeromey Balderrama

I recently apllied a new design to my blog using a template, and in this templete there is a prevalent orange icon the top of the site.  A few people have asked me “What is that, and why does it show me weird stuff when I click it?”

The organize icon is my RSS feed, and this video put on by The Common Craft Show does an excellent job of explaning how you use it – or better yet, how it helps you!

Click To Play

Geek Magazines Dilemma – No More

Jeromey Balderrama

Yesterday the news came that the PC World CEO who was meddling with the editorial decisions has been reshuffled, and Editor-in-Chief McCracken is going to remain.  I think it’s about time to renew my subscription to PC World. 

I’m not naive enough to think that this is the first time advertising/business has censored the media, but it’s good to see that public sentiment and the “right thing” prevailed in this case.

Geek Magazine Subscriptions Dilemma

Jeromey Balderrama

I love my geeky tech magazines.  When I was doing a lot of traveling in the last few years, I made it a habit to buy a bunch of computer magazines for the plane ride.  Since then, I’ve subscribed to both PC World and PC Magazine at one time, but now I’m at a point where I don’t think I can subscribe to either of them.

My first love was for PC Magazine, as I remember when my dad had a bunch of them lying around when I was growing up.  I was happy when I first started subscribing, but then Jim Louderback took the reins as Editor-In-Chief.  In the following months, I saw a steady decline of the content and presentation of the magazine, to where I felt alienated enough to cancel my subscription.  The magazine changed its layout and style.  The print got smaller, the magazine got thinner, the photos were gone replaced with cheesy graphics, and the complex diagrams got replaced with these stupid hand-written-style arrows pointing at pointless features.  Moreover, it seemed like the magazine was trying to be sex’ ed up into something that would appeal to a wider audience.  In the process of doing so however, loyal readers like myself have become alienated.  I understand their stance on “computers are more than the PC” message, but I don’t think we’re at a point to start reviewing cars.  Technology has expanded and become so sophisticated that we now have “computers” in many of our daily devices – but we also have an expansion of avenues of information, so much so that PC Magazine needs to cover it all.  If I’m really that interested in automotive technology, then I’ll seek out something that specific.  If Ziff Davis feels the need to cover those things, then expand your avenues instead of wearing down the ones you have.  I love a lot of the content Ziff Davis puts out (DL.TV especially), but I don’t want to support Louderback and the collision-course that’s been set for PC Mag.

For the last few months I was content with just having PC World, and my subscription was actually up for renewal.  After this week, however, I don’t think I want to support their business with my dollars either.  Earlier this week, their Editor-In-Chief resigned over the new publisher meddling with their editorial decisions – specifically writing a critical review/article about an advertiser. (See PC World editor resigns over apparent ad pressure)  As an admirer of journalism, it’s extremely important that the press not be corrupted by their commercial ventures.  I respect Editor Harry McCracken’s decision, and it bothers me that the publisher essentially said that he could see marketing people meddling again.  In support of McCracken, I don’t think I’m going to be renewing with PC World.

I’d like to subscribe to a good mainstream tech magazine, but I may be up a creek.  Maybe it’s time to take a break from geek magazines and get a subscription of Modern Drummer…