Blogger-Run Labels: Conflict of Interest or Evolution?

Arguing that blogging is a legitimate form of journalism and should thus be held to those standards seems like stretch. There is an understood bias that comes with reading a blog as the author(if that’s even the right word) obviously is not trying to be fair and balanced and instead simply covers what they enjoy.

To me, when a blog forms a label, it seems like another incarnation of the zines from the 80’s that also created their own imprint. Zines and blogs essentially serve the same function and holding blogs to some higher standard of journalistic integrity seems unwarranted.

Let them sell a few cassettes or 45s or whatever because if I want fair and accurate music criticism that is truly concerned with covering good music and not empty fads, I’ll just read Pitchfork(not).

I don’t see how it is different than any of those bloggers curating a show…or a festival for that matter.

I think the language should be switched a little. These aren’t blogger-run labels, but label-run blogs. The same way that Matador’s blog or any other label-run blog tries to sell their own shit, these blogs do the same (I’m assuming because I don’t read them). I don’t see a conflict. This is what businesses are supposed to do.

A good question, Emilie and Georgia.

I wanted to mention the first blog-label that I happened upon: Catbird Records, from The Catbirdseat. That one came together back in 2005 and there are a couple of interviews with Ryan Catbird talking about the label:

http://the99percent.com/articles/5660/catbird-records-small-scale-goodness

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/label_profile/catbird-records.htm

For me, I think what it comes down to is that, at least with the list that you’ve got, most of these labels are pretty DIY and releasing things in line with what they cover on their blogs. For them, forming an associated label to release records is an extension of their goal of sharing music that they like. Just as they probably wouldn’t post a song that they don’t like, they’re probably not going to release music that they don’t fully support. And if they do veer into that territory (i.e. posting a song because they think it will get more hits or promoting/releasing a record because they think it will get them some $$$), then they will indeed lose a lot of integrity, and a lot of readers and customers as well.

In regard to journalistic ethics, blogs have always been outside of the scope of traditional journalism in many ways, so you have to look at them with more flexible and fine-tuned discernment. One blog-label may be genuinely promoting and selling music that they think you will like. Another may just be trying to make a buck. I think it’s up to the consumer to be thoughtful and smart about what they are buying, and in the realm of small-scale labels and websites like this, it’s not too difficult to take things in and make an informed judgment.

What worries me much more are entities like FADER and its “FADER Media Network,” which, in addition to the magazine and sites like tripwire.com and rcrdlbl.com, also owns more commerce-driven companies like insound.com, a record label and a film production company. And on top of that, they’ve got huge promotional partnerships with corporations like Levi’s, Nike and Southern Comfort. It’s a way to build a powerful media entity, but when it comes to journalistic ethics and upfront content and criticism, it’s difficult to be sure of what is coming from where and with what motives. Is FADER highlighting a band because they are playing an event sponsored by one of their corporate partners or because they think you’ll like them? Are they posting an mp3 because they really think you’ll enjoy it or because it increases the chances that you will go buy the album from insound.com? Are they booking an act for the FADER Fort because it will be a great performance or because the buzz from that artist will attract a larger target audience for Levi’s 501s? Journalism, commerce and marketing are so tangled up that you can never be quite sure.

So, I’m fine with blogs starting labels. It’s fairly new territory, as is so much these days, so there are no set rules, but with such specific, niche endeavors, it’s pretty easy to recognize what’s going on and make decisions that are governed by more nuanced factors than the broad and traditional code of journalistic ethics.

For me the question kind’ve boils down to how “writerly” the blog in question is, and whether it has qualities that would align it with traditional journalism, and the ethics associated with that. A lot of these bloggers don’t really write much of anything. They post MP3s, mixes and videos, often accompanied by no more than a sentence or two. Sometimes not even that. In this sort of situation, i think its perfectly acceptable for the blogger to start a label. Its just a continuation of the “sharing” that they are already doing. I think that John R. makes a good point when he says that you have to judge for yourself whether the blogger is selling the record because they like it, or because they think it will make a profit.

I think it is MUCH more problematic when blogs that feature real, honest to god music writing start labels. If the blog has ever featured what could be classified as a record review, and has included both negative and positive critiques of music (as opposed to just featuring things they like) then yeah, there is an ethical issue there. You can’t have it both ways

I would even be OK with blogs that feature both negative and positive critiques having record labels, as long as they make a distinction between what they are criticizing and what they are marketing/selling. That is, they should definitely refrain from offering praise and promotion for their releases while passing it off as objective criticism.

If they just say, “Hey, we’re a blog. We cover a lot of music. We particularly like this band. We’re putting out their 7-inch on our label,” I don’t have a problem. A reader or consumer can examine the taste of the blog through its coverage and critical content, and if they feel like the blog would release something good, they can act on that faith and make a purchase. If the label has previous releases, they can look to quality of those records to inform their decision as well, just as they might with any label.

If the blog is throwing in a glowing review of their own release alongside criticism of other music and not making a clear distinction about their motives and financial involvement, that’s not cool. They’re taking advantage of readers’ trust in their blog’s critical offerings to surreptitiously forward their own money-making endeavors.

So I guess, for me, at least in this context, ethics only really becomes a factor when there is some sort of deception or lack of disclosure involved. As long as bloggers are upfront about what they are doing, their audience can decide whether they want to support those actions or not.

This perspective involves a lot of faith in both the blogs/labels (to be thoughtful and upfront about their writing and selling) and readers/consumers (to be informed and critical about the sites and labels that they patronize), but I think it’s a good place to start. Then one can make more specific judgments and decisions based on the particular situation.

I would say that in response to Elliot Sharp, these ARE blog-run labels. The blogs existed and got a fan base years before the label aspect, so they are hoping to shift that popularity and success into the label aspect, using the audience they garnered blogging as a jumping off point. This means questionable ethics and impartiality.

But, John R has a good point. Local Baltimore blogs-turned-labels (the ones I’m familiar with more so than the ones mentioned in this article like Bmore Musically Informed / Friends Records (http://bmoremusic.net / http://www.friendsrecordsbaltimore.com/) and Aural States / Aural Slates Records (http://auralstates.com / http://asr.auralstates.com/) are pretty much exclusively releasing their friend’s music and bands they were already covering on a weekly basis anyway. In other words, they are just promoting music that they’d promote anyway, but in a better way.

I’d say this is most comparable to a musician running a label. He is working to promote himself and his own artistic endeavors, but he still recognizes the talents of others, and works to help them too.

PS, in terms of my earlier mention of questionable ethics and impartiality, everyone does realize these are blogs, so I dunno if there really is an expectation of ethics/impartiality/intelligence anyway, so what’s the harm, really?

Back in college - shit, I’m old, that was the late 90’s - I was a music writer at Penn State’s Daily Collegian Newspaper. This was the pinnacle of the CD era, where labels were flying high and college papers had hundreds and hundreds of free albums to sort through and review.

A decade later, the ballgame’s changed. Billboard has been reporting the dire picture of ten-fold declines. Heck, journalism’s changed.

Integrity is a big deal to me. I think ‘conflict of interest’ is a blurry and dangerous thing in the rapid-fire digital world. We see it rear its ugly head time and again. But here in the innerwebs, things travel a mile a millisecond. Its one giant cascade of information.

I never pretend to be a ‘journalist’ on yvynyl. Instead, I’m a curator. We’re all drowning in digital data with a plethora of channels begging for our attention. I applaud Pitchfork for aiming high and going for a ‘music magazine’ approach. Good for them. They’ve won the game. They’re head and shoulders above the army of us middle range bloggers in terms of attention and traffic.

Or take VICE Magazine and its emerging media and advertising empire. Unbiased? Hardly. Making shitloads of money? Sure. Lacking journalistic integrity? Who cares! They’re a hipster style ‘zine. They’re not changing the world. LOL. Actually, you gotta hand it to the VBS.tv team. This past year or two, they’ve turned in some amazing and important exposé journalism.

I question how, in the end, art criticism can be completely unbiased while also selling advertising. There is a guise of uncompromising review, but as anyone ‘in the biz’ will tell you, its such a muddy world of who-knows-who handshakes and bro-downs with any bigger publication. I resign to the system we’ve all created.

What excites me about the Internet age for music is that there are no gate keepers. I (or anyone!) can go out there and spend endless hours trolling for gems and bring them to an audience with zero overhead other than my blood, sweat and tears. It just takes time, and love.

So with that notion, I take my blog audience along with me to the next level of my ride. Take these amazing un-noticed gems, package them up in a special way, press them on a unique analog format, and build a collection of excellent music that deserves to be heard and goes beyond the consumption of 1’s and 0’s.

Isn’t that how record labels began in the old days to begin with?

John R and Mark Schoenveld’s takes on this are completely right on. The question of “where’s the ethics line being drawn and when will we (consumers) know if it’s been crossed” is often hard to answer. How do we judge “intent” if we don’t know these people personally? Do fans really know or even care about artistic/creative alliances born out of needs to satisfy someone’s business model?

As a “fan” in the cases of Fader or Vice or Levi’s or RCRD LBL, all I know is that I’m getting some cool music. Maybe that cool Swell Season cover song I got last week will result in my buying Levi’s jeans, maybe it won’t. But that’s the reality of brand association in an overly marketed-to-digital landscape.

I work in “non-commercial” radio in Philly. I am also a music blogger, and I think very well intended to support and help showcase musicians. Some of the “creative” programming ideas I’ve come up with are often “sponsored” by businesses, but these businesses in no way shape or form dictate the editorial or creative decisions I make. And I make these things happen regardless of whether or not sponsors are attached to them. We make programming decisions for our audience and that’s the most important thing to remember here.

Personally I have no problem with music bloggers starting labels. For me, it’s no different than the old days of fanzines that would put out those 7-inch flexi vinyl singles. There was a fanzine called The Bob that I used to write for and loved for that reason; I couldn’t wait to get that new single.

Should bloggers “profit” from starting a label? Why not? Aren’t the artists profiting from this as well? Ultimately the bloggers’ “mission” is to connect artists to audiences. Starting labels is an extension of this.

And to John R’s point - if a blog is putting out a single that meets my expectations with my perception of what that blogger will generally cover anyway, then there’s some philosophical alignment that says “this is okay.”

On the whole, I agree with much of Mark Schoenveld and Bruce Warren’s above comments. In fact, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find any music lover truly opposed to these tiny upstart labels on the grounds that it fosters a conflict of journalistic interest. It represents a grassroots confluence of intense fandom and cottage industry that a lot of people thought was disappearing forever. Look at indie institutions like K Records or Sub Pop–they were started in part by zine writers looking for ways to promote the bands they loved. This isn’t just permissible, it’s desirable. We should be celebrating these professional fans getting into the mix and helping promote artists in new (old) ways.

Y’know, I’ve heard some people criticize music bloggers as being attention-greedy whores simply trying to locate the next big thing before anyone else so they can drive up traffic and sell more ad space (and claim some backwards notion of credibility). I see these new blog-run labels as an answer to those curmudgeonly complaints–bloggers literally putting their money where their mouths are.

Even with the biasing nepotism of “who-knows-who handshakes and bro-downs,” a great thing about the blogging world is that, if something sucks, discerning readers will eventually call bullshit. The absence of strict gatekeepers means no one has a captive audience (not even Pitchfork), so readers aren’t walled in by potentially dubious recommendations or money-making schemes. I can get all the songs from the Cults 7” free online, so I don’t think Forest Families is turning a huge profit by pressing limited edition vinyl and selling it to people who’ve already heard and loved it. What they are doing is giving fans a concrete physical experience of the music they’re already excited about and giving eager young bands a chance to net some pocket change. I say more power ‘em.

I also agree that there’s really no problem, and the main reason is that blogs don’t provide criticism. I very, very rarely see blogs that cover things they *don’t* like; even those that write more than a sentence or two are still exclusively introducing me to things that they like. As people said above, releasing an artist isn’t too much different than linking me to an unsigned artist’s mp3 (except that there’s a hard product somewhere that needs its overheads covered).

I will not go as far as Bruce, however, and give so much leniency to things like RCRD LBL. There’s a certain sense that these sorts of sites are arms of large media conglomerates that are only out to make money. I’m not saying they won’t provide good music - I’m sure half of my favorite albums are on major labels - but when it starts to feel less like ‘a bro introducing me to good tunes’ and more like ‘bros who are part of a machine’ I don’t enjoy it as much and I don’t take their taste as seriously.

On to a related problem, though: when real critical outlets start to interfere with the music they cover. Pitchfork comes to mind as the biggest offender, with the festival and all, but Drowned in Sound has been curating some shows lately as well. Sites like this provide real critical insight (as opposed to the ‘hey bro check out this new band I totally dig’ style of blogs) and when things start to get muddled like that I start to wonder about COIs.

hey dudes and blogettes;

While you’ll be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of these kinds discussions, I almost have to think this is the wrong forum, or perhaps simply the wrong question. Is starting a blog-label ethically acceptable? This is the INTERNET you guys, mixed with a healthy dose of capitalism at that, which means any and all gray areas will be simultaneously exploited, hated, adored, envied, and ultimately, tolerated. This feels a whole lot like the “is downloading music illegally ok?” argument our great grandparents were having in 1998, and having THAT argument a million times didn’t change a thing. So obfuscated the landscape became, I recall hearing downloading music illegally compared to speeding on the highway; what the fuck?

I think the bigger question is, why the sudden proliferation? And even more importantly; where does it all lead? I’ve been thinking about this a lot the last few months, and wrote it all down as the first post on my very first, very new blog last week (don’t cringe! You’ll see why; I won’t even post a link, I swear). An excerpt from that essay is below (spoiler: I fucking love blog labels), but I’ll leave you blog labels and would-be blog labels a word of advice while I have your ear: please be honest to your artists and the people you work with in your endeavor. Above fucking ALL. I know it goes without saying, but I can’t express to you how important it is to not bend, stretch, flex or otherwise distort the truth in any way remotely resembling Stretch Armstrong, and how easy this business not only allows that distortion, but often rewards it. Any mistake you make (and I’ve made TONS, in like, 18 months) is a simple explanation away if you’ve been honest throughout, even if that explanation is “I’m an idiot” (it often is in my case). You guys have tremendous power (really!), so duh, tremendous responsibility. YOU are the real Spiderman franchise reboot.

…

I think blog labels are the cats meow. Why? Well because a seemingly minor but ultimately major shift has changed in the label/band/press dynamic. Used to be (and this is an admitted oversimplification), bands or managers/lawyers/publicists sent their demos to labels, and labels listened to them (or didn’t), and if they liked it, they’d decide to put it out and tell everyone in the press and their brother about the band, hoping people like it and buy it, and the band makes money and the label makes money to put out more bands, and it sure is a lot of fun. Good times.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it’s just not how it really works anymore. Now, labels find their music FROM the press, because lots of people who really love music have awesome blogs to share what they’re digging (blogs count as press, they really do!), and bands have found that since it costs nothing to do a blog post, and costs thousands of dollars to put out a record (not really, but properly), they get a much better response sending their music to a hundred blogs vs. a hundred labels. And of course the people at labels (just like me) read blogs themselves, and if they find something someone has posted that they love, and doesn’t have a home yet, they might get in touch with the band to see whatsup. And again, nothing wrong with that. Good times.

But HEY GUESS WHAT, blogs are starting to figure it out and start labels for themselves. And they should! Fuck yeah! A label isn’t that different from a blog. I’ve always thought (perhaps pretentiously, because ART), that running a label is like being a curator, just instead of a museum, it’s your roster. A blog is basically the same thing, but with dramatically less risk/reward monetarily, and a whole lot less work following that initial discovery. But a blog has one big advantage, which brings me to the point here; since the dynamic has shifted w/r/t where bands send their unreleased demos, blogs will forevermore have the jump on labels. As a label, I’d much rather go straight to the source, and not be influenced by a particular blog’s opinion of a new band… or even more importantly, I don’t want to miss out on a band because no blog posts about them, and I, as a label, never even get to make that decision on whether I like it enough to post or put out, because the band has given up sending their demos to labels. So basically, the thinking here is summed up in the old ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ adage, because I’m vastly more interested in introducing an unknown band that I love than competing with far more successful labels than I’ll ever be to sign the Next Big Thing.

xo,
Hunter
Infinite Best

there is no such thing as objective fact. at least with blogging there is an assumption on the part of the readers that this is simply an opinion. with other, more mainstream outlets, a lot of readers assume that it is somehow ‘objective’ because the fact of writerly opinion is not overtly stated, whereas, everything written is essentially an opinion, regardless of where you read it, regardless of whether or not it’s music related.

my two cents:
-“traditional journalism in any medium” already benefits from it’s opinions, both “financially” and/or “professionally”, even if it’s not a direct revenue type thing. for example: some music magazine doesn’t need to be involved directly in the production of some album, to gain profits for their coverage of that album’s production, the band, the tour, etc, etc. of course it’s different from appearing directly as producers or something like that (a direct revenue), but the fact that it’s not direct doesn’t mean there’s no profit in any other possible way.

-and if profits are not involved (like an ad-honorem type of shit), there will always be some type of “professional” (or “symbolic”) capital, for the same reason there’s always a subjetive choice on the part of the media, choosing some specific type(s) of music and not some other(s), etc, etc (and this even if there’s no explicitly defined profile, like “we’re a metal magazine” or “we’re a noise rock blog”; it happens precisely because of what flipdog just said, that there’s always a non-objetive and non-neutral selection).

piss.

fuck, i forgot this:
-this doesn’t mean the internet-era-crap-thing is just the same as the days without digital tools. there is a rupture between pre-digital and digital dynamics; but not because the former was “without interests” and the latter is suddenly having interests involved. the question would be (and that’s something for which i don’t think there’s a clear answer right now, imo…) between two different dynamics in which different interests play with each other.

I feel a blogger run label can represent a conflict of interest. If a blog is constantly showcasing certain artists from their label and presenting a clear bias towards their own artist roster and label agenda, then the music listeners and fans are not receiving a neutral and unbiased message.

However, I am not against blogs starting their own labels or funding pre-existing indie labels. A blog is still run by a group of music fans, usually diehard music fans/fanatics, and these people want to leave their own imprint within the music business and spotlight the genres they feel are noteworthy.

But it’s really just payola in reverse - music journalists and certainly djs have received elaborate promo/incentive packages from labels for years. Now the script has flipped and the media is starting its own labels and plugging their artists.

Overall, I feel that if a blogger run label is smart, they will separate or disguise the name of the label from the blog. Keep the two entities apart from each other and largely autonomous in the public eye. People can’t complain about what they don’t know or are unaware of.

http://www.shotfromguns.wordpress.com

As long as the blog and their articles (especially ones that pertain to bands whose merch they sell) are transparent, there’s nothing wrong there.

As to whether there is a conflict of interest, of course there is. There almost always is to one degree or another. Curating festivals and putting out the band’s music seems a particularly large conflict of interest, but how it affects a blog has to be judged on a case by case basis.

The only time this situation could become evil is if the blog does not state clearly its affiliation with the band in individual articles and in general.

I don’t think this is so much a question of ethics–even ‘legit’ journalism is suffering through an ethics identity crisis as entertainment news engulfs supposed legitimate news. Rather, this is a question of marketability and anyone who’s taken the slightest bit of college journalism will be able to tell you that then, as now, journalism is fueled by marketing, advertising, et. al. Without the revenue of the latter, the former would be costly to produce and to buy.

This shift of blog-run labels is just a new arm of marketing. I think of all the nostalgia merchandise that is craved by niche audiences. It took years but The State and Daria, for example, finally got huge DVD releases and their fans bought those sets in droves.

It’s the same principle behind these blog labels. It’s not so much a cash grab because small, DIY labels are lucky to break even, but a brand extension and a way for blogs to circulate music they have personally deemed worth the money to back. These blogs have an audience that has found itself agreeing with this set of tastemakers, so the addition of a vanity label only serves a small audience. It’s rare that a band immediately breaks from these releases and it’s even rarer that any band that gains a bit of publicity holds onto it. Blog writers and readers are a fickle bunch. It’s about fads and snagging hits and twitter followers anymore.

Sure, it bothers me because I think a lot of these labels push out crap. But as the author of a column on this very site that covers a lot of similar labels, I also think there’s a lot of great music that has been contributed by blog-backed labels or label-backed blogs.

That is definitely a conflict of interest. There’s no question about it. Because we shouldn’t be surprised that bloggers would do that, that means it’s right? No way. Huge conflict.

On the other hand, it may not even matter. There are better, more custom, more personal ways of music discovery coming for listeners that will be way less susceptible to this kind of commercial bias, and way more focused on delivering what each listener wants specifically. This is where music discovery is going anyway.

Blogs are great for music discovery because they help us sift through the huge piles, but even if we’ve gotten to know a blogger over the years through their work, we still never actually know the person, and thus we’re putting our trust in someone who we’ve never met before. The shift will occur by using technology to utilize the opinions of the people who we do care about..the people in our social networks who make up our friends, family and favorite artists. The best personal and custom recommendations will come from those people, not bloggers.

I am also a music blogger myself.

it’s only an issue when they continually focus on their artists as they are trying to show us new stuff. it seems fair now but the few doing it seem heavy ‘into’ music. in the future- it will become more and more like sales & labels vs. fans.

The problem is that everybody is a critic and everybody can sign up to have their own blog. 2nd problem is that everybody goes onto the internet to find out about “good” music (due to the inability to form an independent opinion). Since very few releases are received similarly by these blogs (sans “major” releases, that seem to have one of two opinions - positive or negative) it’s hard to tell if the “review” is on the mark, or anywhere near it for that matter.

Everybody seems to think they are an expert when it comes to what they review (and subsequently release). This is due to the fact that they have created a blog or write for one and feel a certain kind of immunity from the real situation due to their blogger status - which is that they are out of their element, uninformed and uneducated in a certain genre, and/or (unfortunately) just straight up wrong.

Sure, on a basic level it seems very noble - release something for a project unknown and shed some light on the elusive nature of underground music headed for the blog world “spotlight”. Of course it’s not that simple and yes, blog run labels are absolutely in the middle of a “conflict of interest”. You already have a readership, it’s easier for everybody to be even more lazy - now you can read about all those opinionated reviews AND grab “the good stuff” in one place. Foxy Digitalis are guilty of these practices, as are many others.

It’s not just about the monetary gain however. Event coverage, interviews, etc have all suffered from the laziness of the unqualified, apathetic people writing for these blogs.

Blog onward!

For me it’s interesting when blogs like Dayvan Zombear and Uaxuctum start to branch out into labels, precisely because said blogs aren’t journalistic -they’re a load of remote links to downloads of leaked and/or obscure albums, curated with impeccable taste, sure, but still in that hazy area where permission for the shares is rarely sought and granted. Said bloggers then experience firsthand some of those frustrations they have wrought upon others; in the case of DZ, it’s great to see the guy sticking to his guns - everything is Name Your Price, and he continues to share music he enjoys.

Labels run by writers are no new thing, and as for a conflict of interest: it seems obvious who is credible and who isn’t. FADER and VICE wear their bullshit on their sleeves; ‘take us seriously at your peril’ they say. It’s a fair warning.