As On Air On Sale moves increasingly close to becoming a UK industry standard, RotD examines some of the implications and arguments around the initiative

31 July 2015 - Editorial

All three UK major labels seem to be engaged in a heavy push to make On Air On Sale (OAOS) the de facto industry standard by the time we enter the crucial Q4 release period.

This push is causing quite a buzz – and a lot of debate - both within record companies and at UK radio and the wider media industry.

 We’ve always been largely supportive of the concept that any song heard on radio should also be available to stream and to buy at the same time: it’s a practice that’s logical in so many respects. At the same time however, it’s a new approach which breaks apart the established model of music marketing and which as a result always going to have some detractors. 

Why is it logical? In a world where we’re transitioning ever more to a streaming model, the idea that music fans who choose to hear a track they like can only access it from pirate or poorly-monetised music services is absurd. That, however, is still the current reality for many records performing well at radio. Frequently, fans who want to hear songs according to their own chosen schedule are still faced with an option of acquiring an illegal download, or accessing it via poorly-monetised music services such as YouTube or SoundCloud (which are not forced to play the release date game in the same way that arguably more legitimate services do). The transition to the streaming model also means that the arguments for holding back a release in the hope of large first week physical or download sales are becoming increasingly undermined. An industry strategy where fans who want to do the right thing are arguably punished, and where the services who are doing the right thing by the industry also get punished, yet which strengthens the position of the grey and black markets, is akin to the industry willingly shooting both itself and its key supporters in the foot.

Of course, not everyone feels so positive about the change. Whilst Radio 1 is apparently fully on-board, we understand that a number of commercial radio programmers are less enthused. Let’s not underplay the importance of commercial radio: whilst it might not feature and break as many new artists as the BBC does, it remains absolutely vital in bringing artists through to a point of mainstream success. With the commercial radio industry in the UK increasingly networked, its role in bringing music to a huge audience is arguably bigger than ever. A Radio 1 playlist is nice, but if you want to truly break an artist to a huge level, commercial radio support is vital. 

Commercial radio isn’t wholly opposed to OAOS, but executives that we’ve spoken to have expressed concerns. They fear that it will be harder for them to really champion new artists under the new system. They fear it will be harder for them to engage in the same kind of detailed partnerships with labels around new artists. They fear lending support to a project which could then be viewed as being a failure because its chart performance appears underwhelming, in comparison to the release date model. Underlying all this of course is the fear that in their own competitive market, they will lose the ability to gain an edge over their rivals, to claim successes and to attract advertisers to their platforms.

Whilst these concerns are quite justified, one could also argue that they stem from a desire to preserve an old model which works well for commercial radio stations, but which is increasingly not fitting to modern times, or the needs of artists and record companies. That’s not to say however, that commercial radio bosses are completely shutting the gate on OAOS. Suggestions that large radio groups appear ready to boycott OAOS releases appear to be wide of the mark. Perhaps their biggest concern however, and one that is absolutely justified, is that for this difficult transition to be bearable, it has to be applied equally and across the board. All the key labels must be on the same page, and implementing OAOS in a consistent and fair way. 

There are many detailed questions to be answered. Does OAOS mean that an exclusive play on Annie Mac, for example, means that all other stations will get this track at the same time? It’s all very well making sure the track is on iTunes, Spotify, et al, but if other media outlets aren’t treated equally, the system is perhaps already broken. 

There are also large challenges to grapple with for label marketing departments. Whilst on the corporate level, the big three seem determined in their plans, we understand that many within those companies are struggling with coming to an understanding of how they can plan really successful campaign in this new paradigm. Even if you downplay the importance of initial chart position – as is the plan – they still need to have understandable metrics for success. It might be easy to get cross-media support for the big acts – as happened for Disclosure and Sam Smith’s new single this past Monday. They’re placed in a slightly schizophrenic position where impact on release is designed to be less important – but they still need to achieve impact over the lifetime of a release. Without the old-style chart impact date, perhaps the most important question will be what is the new definition of ‘success’? 

We welcome a world where actual lifetime success is the defining metric of success – it’s entirely fitting to an industry in transition to a streaming model. But how can that lifetime success be achieved? Will labels look to release videos for a single on the same day as the audio track, for example, or will videos increasingly be used as a tentpole event to refresh interest around a track and boost its longer term success? Will labels continue to support long download  pre-orders for forthcoming albums, in order to protect the continuing downloads market? Will pre-orders be revealed ahead of OAOS dates? There are many similar questions to be worked out and for the most part they are questions which labels are already grappling with even without OAOS.

We’re especially intrigued however by the question of whether the ‘bean counters’ at music groups, whose job is to analyse macro-economic success rather than that of individual projects, will be fully supportive of an initiative that arguably further undermines the quick revenue return of the sales-based model. Are they really that forward-thinking? We’d like to think that is the correct strategy, but it’s also a long step from the short term quarterly-results driven analysis which has been a pretty typical metric of defining major label ‘success’ in recent times.

Another spectre hanging over OAOS is the idea that some significant labels might not play ball. The original push for OAOS in 2011 was arguably hamstrung when Warner UK dropped its support. Even if all majors are now aligned, they will also have to justify this approach to managers who want to see clear evidence of success, and will want to gain a competitive advantage by any means necessary. Furthermore, it looks increasingly likely that Ministry of Sound may break rank on OAOS and enjoy the advantages that could deliver for its own perceived success. In a recent MBW interview MoS CEO Lohan Presencer was quoted as saying: “We have the ability to do what we want. Some records we will make available on air / on sale where it’s appropriate. Some we’ll hold back.”  Whilst the wider independent community seems generally supportive of OAOS, some of the most aggressive chart-focused indies could threaten to undermine the project. Which in turn might undermine the support of media, if this initiative is not fully adopted.

We have to wonder how much influence Apple bring to bear on this push. It seems no coincidence that the push comes at a time when Apple itself is both transitioning to a streaming music model and establishing itself as a media player in its own right. Spotify has long been supportive of on air on sale, but it didn’t have a downloads market to protect. Since Apple has apparently decided to go ‘all out’ on streaming, it has a clear vested interest in ensuring its customers have access to as much in-demand music as possible, as well as an ability to place considerable pressure on labels.

It’s impossible to properly address or even just to raise all these questions in one piece. What is absolutely clear is that OAOS will be a really significant and sometimes difficult transition. It’s also one that will be threatened if labels again break rank. Whilst some will no doubt delight in playing rogue, even those labels which are apparently supportive of OAOS will have to work hard to make sure that they don’t chip away at OAOS, or fail to support it on certain products. This would lead to an inevitable decline and collapse of the initiative. Labels will also have to redefine their own expectations and metrics of success, as well as being able to unequivocally argue to artists and managers that this is the best strategy for all. We overwhelmingly feel however that OAOS is evidence of an industry starting to take a longterm view, putting fans first and deliberately encouraging a multi-platform music market where music is monetised as often and as widely as possible.