I just read a November New York Times article about 360, or “multiple rights,” deals. It’s an emerging music business model in which labels invest in bands for the longer haul.

It works like this: Labels bankroll more cash upfront, work more heavily in artist development, and in exchange get a bigger share of artist earnings. Traditionally, labels made money from artists based on album sales, but with 360 deals, artists share earnings beyond albums (a reaction to rapidly declining album sales) - including concerts, merch, and other revenue.

For new artists, these deals are supposed to provide for a little more breathing room to grow into stardom. Paramore seems to be the flagship example of a 360-deal-gone-right. Their label, Fueled by Ramen (an Atlantic Records partner and once-home of the ex-Impossibles from Austin Texas, a band I loved dearly in high school…but that’s neither here nor there), apparently nursed them along for a long time before they hit it. In an MTV article, their lead singer said this about the relationship:

I feel like we have a new kind of partnership with our label…

…a lot of bands on indie labels, they’re working their way up, but it’s slow…and so they don’t get the chances we got. We spent two years playing to, like, anywhere from nine to 20 kids, and it grew gradually over those two years, and it got to where it is today because of that. But I don’t feel like a lot of bands get that leniency, that patience, to just wait around for that big single to happen.

I’m split: Half of me is really skeptical, and half of me likes it. It certainly feels better than hearing about labels dropping artists after almost no time because album sales didn’t hit the mark. This new model almost ends up treating the album as a marketing piece for the band’s full experience, which is really going back to how the Grateful Dead did business. They gave away their music, rocked out, and merchandised.

I guess the bottomline is that success depends on the label - for it to work, labels have to follow through on their promise to nurture talent. I just hope “nurture talent” doesn’t end up being another way to say “convince the talent to become a sell-out hit-factory.”

What do you think?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_PIg7EAUw&rel=1&border=1]

On Monday JetBlue used YouTube to release a response to last week’s runway debacle. In the video, their founder and CEO David Neeleman openly admits their mistakes and explains what steps they’ve put in place to make sure that nothing like this will ever happen again.

What an amazing and common-sensical (might not be a word) response. Watch the video – What other company, especially at the CEO level, has ever been this open, up-front and vulnerable about a mistake like this?

I say vulnerable, for one, because they chose to release it on YouTube where they would be at the mercy of commentors, instead of opting for a “safer” release.

To (almost) quote Paul McEnany from Beyond Madison Avenue:

“You can tell their CEO actually gives a [crap], and the company turned circles to make sure we all knew that.”

As a part of the solution, they’ve also created a Customer Bill of Rights.

Sidenote: This is such a better use of YouTube than using it as a mindless catch-all for “going viral.”

A recent article from Ad Age last week explained that Google is now adding video capability to their primarily text-based AdSense.

This is interesting for a ton of reasons, but here’s just one: they’re implementing this using completely permission-based conditions. Each content-driven ad doesn’t get played unless you, or I, opt-in to check it out. You click play, and the spot plays. Otherwise, don’t worry about it. And the advertisers don’t pay unless you click.

So what all does this mean?

For one, it means Google is directly taking on the networks for their advertising dollars by providing a more direct and targeted alternative to the over-priced and under-relevant traditional television spot.

In television, advertisers pay big to pepper their message far and wide to the masses, fingers crossed that their market demographic 1) doesn’t have TiVo and 2) happens to be watching (and caring) when their spot runs. Google’s model allows advertisers the cost-efficiency of marketing only to those who care.

It also means that everyone’s happy. Marketing Directors are happy, because Google’s cost-per-click arrangement makes tracking referrals and determining ROI easier by leaps and bounds. Advertising Creatives are happy, because their 30-second spot isn’t going to bite the dust after all. And consumers are happy because they get to either do their 2nd-favorite thing, which is to ignore, or their 1st-favorite thing, which is to embrace distraction.

Will people click? Absolutely, as long as advertisers package their message in meaningful (aka awesome) ways. People are already going out of their way to email, blog, and IM worthwhile videos to everyone in their little cyberspace. YouTube pays almost $1 million a month in bandwidth costs. People are watching the stuff.

My hope is that this will further divert advertising from mass viewer crop-dusting, and keep pushing towards relevant, focused, and conversation-worthy messages.