How does VEVO work?

VEVO struck up a deal with all the major record labels in 2009/2010, apart from Warner (WMG) which is why you see them taking down so many people's videos) and they transferred across all the existing videos on legit label/artist channels, but not fan uploaded ones.

Sometimes now if an artist uploads a video to their own channel it will get transferred across to VEVO in a few days because its in their record deals as being a part of the label that all their videos have to go on VEVO.

VEVO views are fake anyway though.

My only problem with VEVO is the censorship, they destroy all those hiphop songs.

I was reading up about this before, Vevo are owned by the record labels and by going into partnership with youtube in this way they have a way of cashing in on the free music they are giving away from people viewing their artists music for free by receiving approx $2000 per one million views as per youtube partnership rates. So add up all the millions and millions of views Vevo videos get and you can see why it's worth their while

if its music video the studio or record company requests that youtube move it under video to give them more exposure.so it makes sense.vevo is free advertising for artists. and the users do not own the content.the music owners can do what they like.

VEVO and YouTube and then major music studios have a deal to allow Vevo to upload the shitty music to their vevo channels and their website. Also part of CMS there's a feature that allows the claimaint to forward views from the infridged video to the 'real' video.

Fuck vevo.

You're all basically correct. VEVO is a collective of all major record groups. As another poster indicated, via a partnership with YT, they make money based on impressions/views of the ads. As they find videos that infringe on those views - they will have them deleted.

This really only speaks to you having the same video as VEVO. So, for example, if you upload the official video for "Call Me Maybe" on your YT channel, VEVO will have it removed.

However, if you upload a fan video for "Call Me Maybe" - they will not. If it's reasonably well done, the labels are likely to just see this as good additional promotion for the artist and leave it alone. Similarly, if you upload a rare performance of "Call Me Maybe" (say, a live video or something) - they are also likely to leave it alone, assuming that they don't have a better quality version of the footage that they plan to upload.

Also - if you have a rare music video that the labels do not presently have a good copy of in their possession - they will likely swipe the vid from you, take your views and brand it as a VEVO vid (likely the case with the Daft Punk vid the OP was talking about). And...nope - they don't have to give you an compensation for "stealing" the vid from you.

The labels will generally figure that you made money off of the video until they found it - technically, you made this money illegally (since they actually own this video), so they call it a draw. VEVO will have it removed from your channel and move it to theirs.

Unfair? Well, not really. Again, remembering that the labels do own it. You just saved them the work of digging it out of the vault. So, just enjoy the benefits while it lasts.

Source? I work in the music business/entertainment world. If there are any other specific questions, I'll be happy to respond if I know the answer. I'll keep an eye on this thread.

padlock said:

You're all basically correct. VEVO is a collective of all major record groups. As another poster indicated, via a partnership with YT, they make money based on impressions/views of the ads. As they find videos that infringe on those views - they will have them deleted.

This really only speaks to you having the same video as VEVO. So, for example, if you upload the official video for "Call Me Maybe" on your YT channel, VEVO will have it removed.

However, if you upload a fan video for "Call Me Maybe" - they will not. If it's reasonably well done, the labels are likely to just see this as good additional promotion for the artist and leave it alone. Similarly, if you upload a rare performance of "Call Me Maybe" (say, a live video or something) - they are also likely to leave it alone, assuming that they don't have a better quality version of the footage that they plan to upload.

Also - if you have a rare music video that the labels do not presently have a good copy of in their possession - they will likely swipe the vid from you, take your views and brand it as a VEVO vid (likely the case with the Daft Punk vid the OP was talking about). And...nope - they don't have to give you an compensation for "stealing" the vid from you.

The labels will generally figure that you made money off of the video until they found it - technically, you made this money illegally (since they actually own this video), so they call it a draw. VEVO will have it removed from your channel and move it to theirs.

Unfair? Well, not really. Again, remembering that the labels do own it. You just saved them the work of digging it out of the vault. So, just enjoy the benefits while it lasts.

Source? I work in the music business/entertainment world. If there are any other specific questions, I'll be happy to respond if I know the answer. I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Click to expand...

Why do they have to ruin music like mentioned here? Sometimes I prefer to watch the official music videos.

the-dream said:

VEVO struck up a deal with all the major record labels in 2009/2010, apart from Warner (WMG) which is why you see them taking down so many people's videos) and they transferred across all the existing videos on legit label/artist channels, but not fan uploaded ones.

Sometimes now if an artist uploads a video to their own channel it will get transferred across to VEVO in a few days because its in their record deals as being a part of the label that all their videos have to go on VEVO.

VEVO views are fake anyway though.

Click to expand...

anddddd how are there views fake?

kideze said:

anddddd how are there views fake?

Click to expand...

They boost views just like we do here. In fact, I've been hired numerous times from labels to boost views on their artists. Think about it. When was the last time you watched a video from a major label artist that didn't have at least 100K views (if not more)? Even if it was the first day of release?

In the case of major label artists, they don't do this necessarily for SEO purposes or YT ranking - they do it more for the integrity/image purposes of making sure their artists' videos don't look unpopular.

After all, radio is often sniffing around YT to gauge whether or not they should add a particular song to regular rotation on their radio stations. If a song looks more popular - the Program Director for that radio station is more likely to add it.

Just basic marketing.

Junkfood00 said:

Why do they have to ruin music like mentioned here? Sometimes I prefer to watch the official music videos.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand the question. Do you mean that they only feature the censored versions of the videos? The uncensored versions are generally readily available, are they not? I might be missing something here. Let me know.

I got a lot of criticism of Vevo by different sources, on issues such as it pushing home user videos out of the spotlight and its publishing of only censored versions of videos.... It is like to have a lot of critics of its recent influence on YouTube. a lot of comments on several videos are alike "FUCK VEVO" as well. I've heard people claim that Vevo is likely inflating the view counts on its videos in one way or another too. I feel like someone should maybe compile a section covering this type of information.......good luck to everybody....

VEVO "works" by working on the last nerve of millions of YT users who originally popularized the community as a (by default) fair use medium, where videos could be freely shared for commentary or satire or news purposes, only to now be snatched away by corporate monopolists, to make yet another buck at the expense of the public domain. I think the whole purpose of Google buying YT years ago was to kill the fair use distribution model the site was built from the ground up to promote, and replace it with yet another iteration of the myth of perpetual monopoly on distribution by a handful of corporations. Score another one for the Man, and against the little people.

People hate VEVO the same way they hate major record labels (they're the same entity) - and any large conglomerate for that matter. They're in the business of making money. The fact that their business is about exploiting artists, who are often naive and easily manipulated, makes them especially easy to hate.

People form deep attachments to their favorite artists and with good reason; their music speaks to them intimately. They're very likely to be very passionate against anyone/anything who appears to be using their work for evil or nefarious purposes. It's totally understandable.

But...the same machine that they hate is also the same one that, more often than not, introduced them to their favorite artist. They've spent a lot of money developing their talent (paying for producers, recording sessions, image makeovers, publicity costs, videos, tours, damage control when they freak the fuck out, etc.).

VEVO is the major record labels' way of protecting this investment. If we're all being honest, we'd all do the same thing if we were in their position and had literally billions of dollars at stake.

All of that being said, the music industry is a dying one and VEVO also represents a "grasping at the final straws" for them. Right now, they're suing pirates, trying to impose new anti-piracy laws, strong-arming Google and YouTube for copyright protection (SOPA and such) because they know that artists are wising up. They don't really need them anymore.

Now, more than ever, an artist can feasibly finance their own work, promote it themselves (and by bringing in hired guns like myself), sell their stuff independently, go on tour and turn a profit.

Still, the labels remain the only source for an artists to get a major, initial injection of cash to be able to jump start their career (think of them like a bank - giving you a REALLY high interest loan). So, the artist has the choice:

* Go with the high interest loan; along with it comes influence and power and the ability to get my work heard immediately - with the risk of getting screwed in the end because I'm signing over half the rights to my work, will likely be in debt most of my career - but, if I'm lucky (and even with the backing of a label - there is no guarantee) I'm going to be uber-famous and can probably ride the coat-tails of my initial splash at least for 5-10 years.

* Do it indie. Know that I'm not going to be on the cover of Rolling Stone any time soon or be appearing on SNL, but I'll keep my integrity and run my operation just like any other small business person would. I'll finance my own work, build it and turn a profit, reinvest and, over-time build a nice little cottage industry around myself. I won't get rich but I'll probably make about as much as my buddy who works down at the steel mill; enough to raise a family and pay a reasonable mortgage. + I get to do what I love for a living.

So...VEVO is what it is. It's just part of the machine. Can't really hate them for playing. We can learn lessons from it, though.

padlock said:

I guess I don't understand the question. Do you mean that they only feature the censored versions of the videos? The uncensored versions are generally readily available, are they not? I might be missing something here. Let me know.

Click to expand...

This is an example, listen to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSipXuqHt40

There are non-censored uploads that are uploaded by normal users like me but the quality one is controlled by Vevo. If you go through the comments, you'll see some Vevo hate.

EDIT: Junkfood00, wrote this below before I saw your response to my previous question - but I think it answers what you were asking:


Also, regarding the censorship of videos on VEVO - they do this so that they can attract advertisers like McDonald's and WalMart who otherwise would not advertise alongside videos with "foul" language. They do offer the explicit versions in most cases. But this allows them to filter advertisers between the content.

They have no vested interest in 'censoring' anything really, when you think about it.

On the censored version - they can run an ad from WalMart.

On the uncensored version - this gives them an opportunity to sell ad space to Adult Friend Finder.

Believe me, they're all about money. They don't care where it comes from.

Besides, the labels put out this uncensored content in the first place - so it's not as if they're being prudes about it or anything. They just want the most $$$ possible.

@Padlock:

What do you mean by saying that the music industry is dying?

Where do you see it going in the next 5-10 years?

Your insider knowledge is highly appreciated.

businessbira said:

@Padlock:

What do you mean by saying that the music industry is dying?

Where do you see it going in the next 5-10 years?

Your insider knowledge is highly appreciated.

Click to expand...

No problem. Happy to share any insight.

It's dying for the reasons I outlined in my previous post. A lot of artists are discovering that they just don't need the labels anymore to follow their dreams.

As an example, years ago (back in the 90s; I'm probably one of the older members of BHW, I'm guessing), I was in a band that signed a major label recording contract. We never took off. But, in order to get to this point, I had to uproot myself from my home, move to New York City, struggle in the clubs for two years, live in a van on brief tours, rent a shitty apartment in the City, practically starve while relying on managers and angel investors to pay for demo recording sessions.

When we finally got our shot and signed a deal, we were given a huge advance, sent to live in L.A. while we worked on our major label debut. The record company paid for everything. The sessions, our rent, our food, our booze, etc. They even sent us out on the road to open for a couple of (at the time) major artists.

In my case, the band broke up shortly after finishing our record. The album was shelved and I returned home with nothing more than a few good stories to tell.

Then...I got a bill. From the label. For about $50K.

See, none of that shit was free, it turns out. Because the label wasn't able to recoup their losses from their investment via us touring, selling records, etc...that "loan" that they'd given us was now due....in full. We were going to get sued.

Of course, I didn't have that money. And, luckily, we had a good set of managers that worked out terms and allowed us to not go bankrupt in the process.

But, the above was a very common story back then. We wouldn't have had any other way to become successful artists were it not for the labels. We NEEDED them.

Today...bands don't need the labels the way that they used to. More and more often, you're hearing wonderful stories about bands that develop on YouTube or Reddit or Facebook even. Instead of signing with a label, sometimes they just build their own businesses and do reasonably well. As I mentioned before, they don't get rich....but they make a good living...and they don't get delivered bills for $50K. lol.

The labels are seeing this. So, they're signing fewer and fewer artists and focusing now on vehemently protecting their catalogue. This is what's going to make them money in the long run - it's like protecting stock. Thus, Vevo and other tools to ensure that this catalogue continues to turn dividends in the future.

The music industry, as a whole, in the 5-10 years is going to be turned on its ear. It's happening already. As services like Spotify and Pandora grow in influence, radio, for example, is being forced to try to adapt. In doing so, radio is slowly turning away from relying solely on major label content for its playlists and seeking to discover new music to introduce their listeners to in other ways. Radio is slowly reverting back to its old ways...like back in the 1950s when DJs would discover new artists in clubs and play them on the air...only now - they're discovering them through Spotify and such and then adding them to rotation. Often these are indie bands.

So, I would predict that in the next 5-10, you're going to see the labels focus on their extensive libraries and protecting them, radio will be radically trying to change its entire paradigm and artists will be turning their attention to farming out their marketing to people like US.

This is where members of BHW can turn a profit. I'm inviting competition here but...meh - I'm doing OK and I'm good at what I do. So, bring it on.

We know how to market the shit out of practically anything, right? A lot of us love music, right? Well, here's an opportunity. Work on growing a business that tailors your marketing skills to the independent artist.

The downfall here, of course, is that up and coming acts don't have a lot of money to spend...so you'll need to get creative as to how you'll get paid. This is what I did. I'll leave that part open for speculation, however, as I don't want to give away my entire method. But, senior members can likely deduce my model.

Sorry for the long-winded reply.