Reverb Data’s Andy Blair: “Every artist can choose their own adventure for what works for them, and they can be successful at it”

Andy Blair spent nearly nine years at Universal Music Group as its chief privacy officer, but after he left in July 2024 he launched Reverb Data, a data-focused law firm and consultancy working with artist teams, tech companies, labels and other music firms.

If you think his past role gives him some thoughts on UMG’s planned acquisition of Downtown Music Holdings, well, you’d be right. Blair talked Music Ally through some of the key concerns from the independent sector about the deal.

“A lot of what I see through my lens in the technology and data space is concern that UMG, through a much broader view of indie distribution and the data that represents that, there could be further advantages that UMG gets from that view, and those advantages could be used against indies,” he says.

“Could or would UMG see trends emerging from indie data that they may not have otherwise seen from their frontline labels, and then use that competitively to prioritise the signing of certain artists, getting out in front of trends earlier?”

“You do get better data through these deals than you would get through a Chartmetric or something like that. It’s not completely different data, but it is better data.”

There could be further advantages that UMG gets from that [data], and those advantages could be used against indies” Andy Blair

He also suggests that as major labels focus even more on non-western European developed industrial nations for their growth, there will be advantages in seeing independent distribution data from those markets.

“So is that okay? Are you okay, as an indie label or independent artist going through CD Baby or FUGA, with the data related to your recordings and consumption being used for those sorts of things?”

Preserving autonomy

Blair sees this as a question about preserving the autonomy and control of independent artists and labels.

“The fact that these people in this place consumed this – their content – in this way… I think between the artists and the labels they have a good argument that this is their confidential data, and that it should only be used to report back to them,” he says.

“It’s about maintaining the value balance, and ensuring that there is not value being generated by someone in a way that you didn’t approve and aren’t getting any benefit from. Because it would be totally valid if FUGA wants to come and say ‘hey, we want to use this data for product development, and we’re goign to give you these economic benefits or considerations to do that’. That’s business!”

Blair also talks about shifts in the data and privacy landscape as it relates to labels and streaming services.

“One of the major concerns and areas of unhappiness, certainly in the majors, over the past six to eight years, are that most of the major DSPs really pulled back and altered the data they were providing,” he says.

“It started out much more granular. That all happened because of privacy laws. When you’re providing line-by-line transactional information, even though you don’t have the person’s name or handle, you’re going to have timestamps, you’re going to have devices, you’re going to have some location information in there that actually allows you to individually call out and track that person’s listening through that dataset. Under European standards and others, that IS personal data.”

“One of the major areas of unhappiness… is that most of the major DSPs really pulled back and altered the data they were providing” Andy Blair

So, although a number of things have happened to depersonalise that data, driven by those laws, Blair thinks that there is still an argument for indies that the more granular streaming data is personal information.

“If your goal as an indie is that you want to pull all the levers you can, to make all the arguments that you can to assert control over the valuable data being generated through use of your content in the ecosystem, that is a lever you should be thinking about,” he says.

“It probably won’t be the lead lever in all cases, but it’s absolutely something that can give you a little bit of negotiating leverage. ‘Hey, this is coming through the system based on my content. You as a distributor are getting that data only because you’re servicing me, and therefore what you can do with it is limited’.”

He admits that the ability of individual artists to modify the terms under which distributors use their data is “not very high”, but this is where he thinks competition will come in.

“If the result artists want is protection from use of their data in ways that they’re not comfortable with, I think the mechanism for that will be others in the industry offering better terms, and those terms being better reported,” he says.

“I do think we will see some distributors lean into and explicitly say ‘we are going to build in contract terms and restrictions on our side that preserve the economic value of this data for you, the indie label’. I have not seen that reported on yet, but I would be shocked if it doesn’t happen.”

“There is an angle here if you are an indie distributor, and you are still indie, to say ‘hey, we’re not going to go down this route if you are uncomfortable with your distributor being owned by Universal’ – and honestly, it applies to other major-owned distributors as well,” he continues.

“There’s certainly value in this data, and it’s a competitive advantage for an indie distributor, in my view, to offer legally binding assurances, that any value that’s coming off of the data tied to your distribution of content is going to come back to you. And you’re going to have control over who gets that value and how it’s shared.”

Fan data, D2C, and superfans

Blair thinks that this ties into the music industry’s wider discussion about fan data, direct-to-consumer and superfans, and the debate about who should have ownership and control of that fan data.

“I think that same trend will come into this space, because if I’m an indie distributor, my ethos of centring around an artist or indie labels is going to drive me to make decisions that are more protective of and beneficial to the artist perspective than it is to my own corporate benefits,” he says.

“I think that ethos will cross distribution, it will cross the way that you approach fan data, and the services that you’re providing. Are you building those services to serve the artist first? And if the artist leaves your label, that it’s their data.”

“If I am an indie label or indie distributor right now, my marketing play is that I’m putting you at the centre of my world, truly. Not just saying ‘artists are the centre of what we do’ but actually doing it: protecting the value of data that comes through your systems for your customers,” he continues.

“It’s not just an empty promise. It’s not just words. You’re building your contracts in a way that. preserves those protections, and you stand behind it. I think we will see Apple-like marketing to that end: ‘We are the artist-friendly distributor’ or ‘We are the artist-friendly label’.”

Blair sees a lot of energy and innovation going into developing technology and services for artists and independent labels to take control of and use their data more effectively, even though he admits there is still a lot of work to be done – and accountability to be shouldered.

“If you are taking control of the data. All of those laws that apply to use of that data apply to you,” he notes. One of Reverb Data’s current projects is building a way to provide “very low-cost access to a privacy policy” to its clients, which could launch in the next six months.

“We’re probably 18 months to two years away from having really good, clear solutions for artists” Andy Blair

“But it goes bigger than that. There are three pillars that you need. You need technology, you need people and you need data,” he says.

“The technology solutions are being built by lots of people on the fan-club and community side of things, on the CRM side and on the online advertising side. There’s a bunch of people who are trying to solve that, and I think we’ll see a few emerge as the winners.”

The people side are people who know what to do with that data, either on the artist’s or label’s team, or externally – for example the growing number of people building artist services companies, many of whom previously worked within the label system.

“But the data is the third piece. You need to have control over that data – legal control. I think we’re probably 18 months to two years away from having really good, clear solutions for artists, but if you want to do this today you can piece it together.”

“If I buy a ticket to a show, who do I expect to get this data?”

Looking to the future, Blair thinks that the largest companies in the music industry still “underestimate the potential value of them being data hubs”, but he sees clear legal and structural barriers that have made that the case.

For example, the privacy issues around bringing together data from the recorded-music and live-music sectors, which has often been seen as a silo worth breaking down.

“One of the major value sources, if you’re an artist wanting to understand your fans, is ticket buyers: that is really valuable data. But coming back to privacy law, there is this concept of ‘reasonable expectations’ of the individual on who’s using that data,” he explains.

“If I go to Ticketmaster and buy a ticket to a show, who do I expect to get this data? Ticketmaster, obviously. The artist I think is reasonable. Do I expect a massive conglomerate of labels – I don’t even know what label my artist is on and I don’t care – to get that data and use it to profile me and promote other artists’ content to me?”

“I just don’t see any regulator in the world agreeing that a ticket buyer reasonably expects that.”

He has similar reservations about usage of the data from fans visiting artists’ websites, where he suggests that the identify of their label is usually downplayed in favour of an experience focusing purely on the artist.

“This is presented as the artist’s official website, the artist’s official store, the artist’s official mailing list. They downplay as much as possible the existence of the major label behind it. The expectation of the fan is that they’re interacting with the artist,” he says.

“So the idea that you’re going to do this almost sort of bait-and-switch? ‘Oh yeah, this is totally the artist’s official thing, never mind, we’ve got this shared data hub behind the scenes where we’re doing all the slicing and profiling’. I think there are some real underlying problems with that approach.”

“If you maintain control of your relationship with your fans… you’re going to have the ability to shape the career that works for you.” Andy Blair

Artists: assert control of your data

This is why his message to artists is that control of their data is valuable and important to assert.

“Technologies will change. Trends will change. Your relationships with labels, merch service companies, ticketing and touring companies will change. If through all of that you maintain control of your relationship with your fans, and you’re not losing databases left and right as things change over time – if you have that data centred on you – you’re going to have the ability to shape the career that works for you.”

“I think we’ve got an overestimation on the side of the big players on their ability to use data, born out of desperation because with plateauing of streaming revenues you’ve got to find other things. The superfan ideas are blowing up, blah blah blah. So I think there is an overestimation there, but also an underestimation on the artist side of how important it is to them.”

Blair is offering some simple tips to those artists. First, get a privacy policy that establishes them as the controller of their data, and using that wherever they can, from label deals to merchandise and ticketing/touring.

“I think there’s a certain fatalistic view that it actually doesn’t matter what you do as indies: when you get big and successful enough, someone’s going to buy you” Andy Blair

“The number of massive artists’ deals that I’ve seen where that data is just un-discussed. Artists who have every leverage point in the world to make it be what’s beneficial to them, and it’s just not covered,” he says.

“It [data] is a different area of law. It’s like immigration or family law. You don’t expect an artist lawyer to be an expert in those. And then most data lawyers out there don’t understand the messiness of the music industry, and how it’s different – really coming at it from an artist perspective.”

He thinks this gap will be filled, and Reverb Data is trying to build some tools to do that for artists, rather than “just billing hourly”.

But the conversation finishes back at the UMG/Downtown deal, and how the independent sector thinks about itself.

“I think there’s a certain fatalistic view that it actually doesn’t matter what you do as indies: when you get big and successful enough, someone’s going to buy you,” he says.

“There are a lot of indies out there that do value what they do and their role in the marketplace, but the dystopian future is that you just have a string of ‘indie organisation grows, gets acquired; indie organisation grows, gets acquired’ and you never get out of this situation where large incumbents dominate everything.”

“And the reason that’s not good is that we need a healthy ecosystem. I want every artist to have the best opportunity possible to have their best career possible, and I don’t know that this option is anywhere near its potential if we have a large incumbent-dominated ecosystem. It’s not that they’re bad – they all have important roles – but I don’t think domination of the market is healthy.”

A positive vision of the future

Thankfully, he also has a utopian vision to share: one with healthy, forward-thinking management companies and independent labels getting the resources to stay independent, and experiment with their artists on putting themselves at the centre of their fan relationships.

“If you take 10 artists and you have an artist centric approach where they are all optimising in their own way for what’s better for them, the total economic benefit for that will far outstrip a model where a large incumbent has a platform view where they’re trying to maximise their own benefit,” he says.

“You know, if they’re picking which artists they’re going to market in which ways, and then cross-promoting a hoodie to this person because they liked the hoodie from this other artist. There is an economic benefit to all of that, but I don’t see that being a better economic outcome than each individual artist optimising for themselves.”

“As we get more mature, as the education increases, as we get to a point where artists have the ability and the understanding and support to make better decisions for themselves, the outcome is going to be a much richer set of options: music-focused CRM providers, fanclub providers, communities and all these sorts of things.”

“Every artist can choose their own adventure for what works for them, and they can be successful at it,” he continues. “And I think once that becomes more well known, every artist is going to opt for that. Why wouldn’t you?”