TrueAnthem raises $2 million to pollute music with pre-song ads

July 28, 2008 | Dan Kaplan | Comments | |

The concept of ad-supported music ranges from relatively sensible to outright dumb.

Last.fm’s recently announced “smart ads,” which respond dynamically to the beat of the music being played, are relatively sensible. In-music ads, which consist of sponsored announcements that play before the song, are outright dumb. This has not, however, stopped trueAnthem, a purveyor of the latter, from raising a $2 million round of seed capital and getting the sneaker manufacturer Adidas to sign up for an ad campaign.

The non-wisdom of in-music advertising is obvious: An announcement before a song cannot be clicked, therefore its efficacy cannot be accurately measured. The ads, which the artists themselves record, are intrusive and awkward on the first listen. If you download the track, the ad stays with it, playing every single time the track is played. The approach makes sense if the goal is to make the listener dislike the artist and hate the advertiser, but based on trueAnthem’s website, this does not appear to be what the company is trying to do.

Ad-supported music has seen a number of fits and starts. SpiralFrog, which launched last fall, lets people download DRM-protected tracks in exchange for interacting with ads on its site. The company managed to land a deal with Warner Music Group, but it’s not yet clear that it will actually go anywhere profitable. Companies like iMeem and MySpace employ the model, but, as a recent piece in Silicon Alley Insider argued, thanks to the expectations of the major labels (a penny for every play), these companies won’t have an easy time of it either.

To be fair, trueAnthem’s model also incorporates sponsored widgets. These widgets let listeners stream or download an artist’s music and features the sponsor’s logo. Unlike in-music ads, sponsored widgets make some sense.

But it’s hard to have much hope for a company whose CEO promotes “product placement that’s staying with the song forever.”

One of the bands working with trueAnthem is Hootie and the Blowfish, whose brief glimmer of success, like trueAnthem’s funding, will remain a mystery for generations to come.

A trueAnthem widget for Kristene Mirelle, a classically-trained pianist who turned pop, is below.


Kristine Mirelle TrueAnthem Music


Next Story: Language learning website Babbel nabs first round of funding
Previous Story: Dayak raises $1M for recruiting marketplace

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,

Photo of Dan Kaplan

About the Author, Dan Kaplan

Once upon a time, Dan considered himself a magazine journalist with dreams of "The New Yorker" and a couple of well-reviewed but only mildly successful books. Then one day, life, as it is known to do, decided it was time for rebirth. Like so many things before it, this rebirth was conceived on a mostly-empty plane to Reno. Now, instead of magazine writing, Dan would plunge into the world of New Media and write for Matt Marshall's blog.

It's funny how it goes.

  • aandarian
    this is terrible. Ask any marketer or psychologist, from a consumer standpoint this is nonsense.
  • fabulous
    If a consumer is 15 years old it makes lots of sense!

    If a consumer wants music for free but is unwilling to steal it makes fantastic sense!
  • fabulous
    As a musician myself I can see why musicians would love trueAnthem.

    How did we get to a place where fans, who supposedly adore musicians, feel just fine stealing their music?

    If everyone feels okay about stealing from musicians then trueAnthem might just be 100% right-on about where the future is heading…

    How long before YouTube videos all play a commercial before starting? Think about it.
  • Ryan
    What they need to do is force you to solve a math problem every time. It can be like a human powered Folding@Home network.
  • I disagree. I don't find it that obtrusive and I feel that many of today's youth who the service is squarely aimed at will not either. It's a small price to pay to get music that you're interested in. Realize also that there will also be those who will utilize and audio editor to remove the ads from the song.

    Your argument about the ads not being able to be clicked is kind of flacid as well. You can't click on a television or radio commercial either that doesn't mean that it's not effective. Just because this is new media doesn't mean that you have to throw all old media sensibilities away on everything.
  • Listening to an ad before every single track is an awful experience. For one thing, it compromises the in-the-moment enjoyment that people look for when they listen to music. For another, it feels tacky. It also gets maddeningly repetitive.

    More importantly, when it's no trouble at all to find tons of free music that doesn't require you to pay a "small price" every time you hear it, what do you think people will do? And I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of people who are willing and able to use an audio editor to not pay this "small price," is below 1%.

    As to your point about the flaccidity of my point about clicks: take a quick look at the trends that are shaping the advertising industry right now: The money is moving online and fast. The major reasons? A. It seems to work better. B. It offers clearly measurable metrics.

    Radio commercials effective? Not the last time I checked.
  • "this is terrible. Ask any marketer or psychologist, from a consumer standpoint this is nonsense."

    See this is the type of thinking that has the music industry in trouble. The marketers and the psychologists are not the people illegally downloading music. Sure to an older generation this would be horrible... but again, it's NOT FOR YOU.

    Why is that so hard to comprehend? Today's youth have more information tossed at them than ever and their attention spans are much shorter because of it. It's not such a bad way to get the actually listen to ads.
  • Actually, the thinking that has the music industry in trouble emerged when it thought it could put the reigns on an emerging technology and that the best way to do this was to sue teenagers and college kids.

    Trying to suppress technology is a loser's game, especially in an information economy. The music industry got into trouble because the economics changed and rendered its standard models obsolete.

    It's not understanding this fact that keeps it in trouble.
  • I think you need to test this service just 10 minutes to realize that the ads are not intrusive, and you get used to them after listening to only 2 songs - the fact that the advertisement is a simple "brought to you by [insert company]", and that it is presented by the artist himself, doesn't come off as annoying: it's as if the artist was presenting his next song on the radio.
    I find it's a great compromise, and although you say that there are lots of other places to find streaming music, i think what internet does is bring fans and bands closer: as they do, fans will realize that listening to a 3-second spot is a small price to pay to support the bands that they are discovering.
  • J.Farley
    There's commercials on TV... I don't hate the TV shows that follow them.... stop whining for 2 minutes, and download an audio-editing app (like Audacity) for free, and lop-off the ads if they bother you so much.

    TV producers and writers make money from advertising... no reason creative songwriters need to be 'above' making money. Last time I checked... the record-selling business was in the toilet. I prefer my favorite bands to not be homeless, or working at Starbucks. Its simple... Pay them, they'll continue making art.
  • abercrombie622
    Ed Hardy Clothing is no curb to the amazing styles of Ed Hardy Clothing.
    http://www.edhardysell.com