Thanks for commenting.

I have not used the site and my commentary was not on the technology itself, more the insights that are behind the thinking. Guvera states that the old ad model of interruption no longer works. I dis-agree. It also says that this will be the ‘biggest change to media in history’. Again I dis-agree.

That 2 of the big 4 have signed up just means that Guvera has signed over substantial advance payments. Labels have seen many of these type of supposed game changers over the years and they are wise enough to take the cheque from the VC’s behind it before the funds dry up. What have they got to lose?

I agree with above statement that joe average will probably not make any connection between music and specific brands, but I’m also fairly sure that if consumers could be reasonably sure that an artist is getting some form of remuneration from something the consumer is getting free, most would be keen to support it.

as tom pointed out, some of the selections are a bit hrm as well.

all that aside – the idea of brands paying for music and generating some sort of positive ROI is something I cannot even begin to grasp. Neil’s analogy of it being akin to the unpopular but rich kid at school trying to buy mates is pretty apt.

Can’t see consumer joe making the connection between free Nickleback downloads and McDonalds paying for this. The premise that the interruption ad model is broken is incorrect and horrendously cliched.

That said the Melb rep is a ripper bloke and I hope I’m wrong for his sake.

The signup form solicited a few laughs: XBox/PS3 is a “favourite sport”, “capella” is a music option and “Africa”, “UK & Europe” are favourite countries. What if I love France & Spain but detest the UK? HOW WILL YOU MARKET TO ME THEN?