
Get in the KNOW
on LA Startups & Tech
X'Artists Have More Options': Q&A CEO Troy Carter Thinks Record Labels Will Soon Have to Change
Sam primarily covers entertainment and media for dot.LA. Previously he was Marjorie Deane Fellow at The Economist, where he wrote for the business and finance sections of the print edition. He has also worked at the XPRIZE Foundation, U.S. Government Accountability Office, KCRW, and MLB Advanced Media (now Disney Streaming Services). He holds an MBA from UCLA Anderson, an MPP from UCLA Luskin and a BA in History from University of Michigan. Email him at samblake@dot.LA and find him on Twitter @hisamblake

Troy Carter, 48, knows the modern music business well. The Philadelphian-turned-Angeleno has managed Lady Gaga, John Legend and Eve, and formerly led creator services at Spotify. Carter, who also oversees the entertainment assets of the late artist Prince, has been an advocate for artists and called for greater artist-ownership of their copyrights.
In early 2019, Carter launched Q&A with longtime collaborators Suzy Ryoo and J. Erving. The music-tech company aims to help artists and labels navigate everything from royalty payments to creating hit music through a combination of services and software. One of its first moves was to merge with Erving's Human Re Sources, a distribution and label services company that Sony acquired this December. But its most-watched move is a tech spin on talent management, including a new product that uses music enthusiasts and AI to test whether songs can become hits.
Earlier this month, the company launched Venice Innovation Labs, a division that's developing the predictive software, along with another product to help record labels distribute music, manage their artist roster and keep track of financial splits and payments. It counts Grammy-nominated Ant Clemons and Baby Rose among its early clients.
Carter has been an active early-stage tech investor through his angel fund, AF Square, which has invested in Spotify, Dropbox and Uber, along with L.A.-based PlayVS, FazeClan, Blavity and Thrive Market.
dot.LA caught up with Carter to talk about the future of the music industry and how technology is continuing to shift its balance of power.
What do you see as the main problems facing the music industry?
Artists have more options now than they've had in the past because of technology and capital sources. Before, the types of deals were limited, because it was essentially one capital source: record labels. That's no longer the case. Technology has created lower barriers to entry. Artists can release music on their own and they can start building buzz. If I was starting a label today, I would be looking at: how do I future-proof my label before I get disrupted by other models? Even if labels got a perpetual piece of the revenue stream, if the ownership and control of those rights went back to the artist as the label recouped or reached a profit, that's a model that could work.
Why do you consider that as a model for labels to future-proof themselves?
Otherwise, if the choice becomes I (as an artist) have to give up 80% of my upside in exchange for a $250,000 advance, and that ties me into three to five albums, which is probably eight or nine years of my life – maybe that $250,000 isn't worth it if this (alternative) capital source over here is much less restrictive and gives me the freedom to make different types of decisions. That becomes the differentiating factor.
How are you beta-testing songs?
A label traditionally looks at post-release analytics, which isn't that helpful after you've already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into a song or project. This is about pre-release analytics, to inform you whether or not you should invest into that particular song or project. In a software business, there's a lot of A/B testing; you're figuring out what works and what doesn't work. And you're investing in things that work, and killing products or features or things that don't work.
The music industry has been such a gut-driven business. If you're in a studio, you like a song, it goes to the record label, everybody gets excited, and you put it out onto digital service providers (e.g. Spotify, Apple Music). But if you find out that fans aren't reacting as much as you thought they would , yet you've already invested in the music video, you already invested in the lyric video, you spent money on photo shoots for the artwork – that's a significant investment.
So when you're A/B testing a song pre-release, how do you assess its viability?
You have real listeners on one side that are giving you real feedback. We know a lot about those listeners and their listening habits. They're giving feedback on the specific songs, whether it's through sentiment analysis, through actual rankings of the songs themselves. It's not coming from just software; it's coming from a combination of software and listeners as well.
How do you identify that initial pool of listeners?
We really did a good job of curating. I think it's over 1,000 sign-ups at this point, and a waitlist as well. We won't give away our secret sauce, but we got a great group of music listeners on the other side. For the cohorts that are in right now, the focus is primarily around pop and hip-hop. And the idea is then to spread it out from there.
So you'll sort of re-curate the cohort as the supply-side evolves?
Exactly. It's not even re-curate as much as it is bringing on. If we decide, you know, country music is the next vertical, it's making sure that we go out and recruit there. If it's classical music – the listeners are specific to the genre.
How do you balance software with human intuition in order to gauge the strength of an artist or a song?
I don't believe software will replace humans in terms of finding great artists. I think (with software) you can identify what people are reacting to and it can give you information on the types of things that people are reacting to. But, in terms of being able to identify who a star is, before there's any data available, that's what great entrepreneurs like Berry Gordy (founder of Motown) or Jimmy Iovine, or people who've started these fantastic labels over the years do.
Our job is to be able to give them tools to help them run those companies and make smarter decisions. Is it this song, or is it that song? Is it this piece of artwork, or is it that piece of artwork? So I don't think it replaces the intuition, and I don't think it replaces the creativity. I think it just helps inform decision-making after they've made those intuitive decisions.
How do you think a young Berry Gordy would be different if he operated today?
The only difference would be the musical tastes would have changed. But in terms of the core principles of what he would be looking for in an artist, they wouldn't change. That's the difference with Berry Gordy and with real artist-development executives.
You have some executives (now) that basically will look at "what's the velocity of this artist on TikTok or SoundCloud, or YouTube," and that's how they spot talent. Not to say anything's wrong with that, but it's a different approach when there's no data, and you just see, "okay, this person has an incredible voice, and a quality that lights up the room when they walk in; I can help shape this person to be a superstar." It's a different quality that a person like Berry Gordy has, making decisions in the absence of data.
Isn't adding data taking out the very qualities in artist-development executives that you celebrate?
My job, with software, is: Can I help them choose which song they should release first? And what that reaction would be around that song. Can I help them deliver that content from A to Z seamlessly? Can I help them with their project management software as they're going through each step in that creative process? So it's not to replace the creative process, it's to organize the creative process.
A recent article by a past colleague of yours at Spotify, Will Page (former Spotify chief economist), suggested that we've hit 'peak streaming' in some markets. Is that right?
Music is the soundtrack to people's lives. I don't know if we're ever going to hit a peak, in terms of the way people engage with music. If anything, people are going to engage with music even more because you have more television shows which sync music now. When you look at the amount of content on TV, you look at the amount of games, the amount of short-form video that's being made, you look at TikTok videos – I think engagement is going to continue to grow. It's too early to be able to say whether we've hit peak or not. We went through a really interesting year, where a lot of behaviors changed, and we need to see what normalization is going to look like. We can probably answer that question better a year from now.
Looking forward, what do you think the role of livestreaming and livestreamed concerts becomes?
We're at the very, very, very beginning of what we're going to see in the livestreaming space – specifically around AR and VR. The live concert experience is limited to who can be in a room. And there's only a small percentage of really great seats in the house. Right now you're capped at a capacity, plus the amount of wear and tear on artists to do 150, 200 tour dates throughout the year, and the level of expense that comes with that as well; we can figure out much better experiences. Not to say it's going to replace it, but I think it's going to be very complementary and I think we're at the very, very, very beginning stages right now.
When do you think live events return?
I think in the U.S., we'll see that this summer we'll be back up and running with live. Probably not at full capacity, but I think by the end of 2021, we'll be back full-capacity.
What's ahead for Q&A and Venice?
We have things coming down the pipeline that we're excited about. But our thing is: Can we become the operating system for the music industry? If you look at what our workflow looks like right now, people are still sending music in Dropbox and Box, or WeTransfer; lyrics are written in people's notes on their phone or on Google Docs or on texts; you may have something on your email at the label but somebody else may have something else on their email. There's no central source of truth when you're managing a project. So the way we're looking at it is, for creative projects and labels, can we become the central source of truth?
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
---
Sam Blake primarily covers media and entertainment for dot.LA. Find him on Twitter @hisamblake and email him at samblake@dot.LA
- Livestream Concerts Boomed During Lockdown. Are They Music's ... ›
- Music Tech Trends to Watch in 2021 - dot.LA ›
- Tastemaking & Gatekeeping in the Streaming Era - dot.LA ›
- What the Future of Streaming Means for Artists - dot.LA ›
Sam primarily covers entertainment and media for dot.LA. Previously he was Marjorie Deane Fellow at The Economist, where he wrote for the business and finance sections of the print edition. He has also worked at the XPRIZE Foundation, U.S. Government Accountability Office, KCRW, and MLB Advanced Media (now Disney Streaming Services). He holds an MBA from UCLA Anderson, an MPP from UCLA Luskin and a BA in History from University of Michigan. Email him at samblake@dot.LA and find him on Twitter @hisamblake
Subscribe to our newsletter to catch every headline.
Greater Good Health Raises $10 Million To Fix America’s Doctor Shortage
Keerthi Vedantam is a bioscience reporter at dot.LA. She cut her teeth covering everything from cloud computing to 5G in San Francisco and Seattle. Before she covered tech, Keerthi reported on tribal lands and congressional policy in Washington, D.C. Connect with her on Twitter, Clubhouse (@keerthivedantam) or Signal at 408-470-0776.
The pandemic highlighted what’s been a growing trend for years: Medical students are prioritizing high-paying specialty fields over primary care, leading to a shortage of primary care doctors who take care of a patient’s day-to-day health concerns. These physicians are a cornerstone of preventative health care, which when addressed can lower health care costs for patients, insurers and the government. But there’s a massive shortage of doctors all over the country, and the pipeline for primary care physicians is even weaker.
One local startup is offering a possible answer to this supply squeeze: nurse practitioners.
On Wednesday, Manhattan Beach-based Greater Good Health unveiled a $10 million Series A funding round led by LRVHealth, which adds to the startup’s $3 million seed round last year. The company employs nurse practitioners and pairs them with doctor’s offices and medical clinics; this allows nurse practitioners to take on patients who would otherwise have to wait weeks, or even months, to see a doctor.
“This access and equity issue is just going to become more pervasive if we don't do things to help people gain more access,” Greater Good founder and CEO Sylvia Hastanan told dot.LA. “We need more providers to offer more patients appointments and access to their time to take care of their needs. And in order to do that, we really need to think about the workforce.”
There has been a growing movement in the medical industry to use nurse practitioners in place of increasingly scarce primary care physicians. California passed a law in 2020 that will widen the scope of nurse practitioners and allow them to operate without a supervising physician by 2023. Amid a shortage of doctors, there’s also the question of what will become of the largest and longest-living elderly population in recent history, Baby Boomers. Public health officials are already scrambling for ways to take care of this aging demographic’s myriad health needs while also addressing the general population.
“By the time you and I get old enough where we need primary care providers to help us with our ailments and chronic conditions, there aren't [going to be] enough of them,” Hastanan said. “And/or there just isn't going to be enough support for those nurse practitioners to really thrive in that way. And I worry about what our system will look like.”
Nurse practitioners function much like doctors do—they can monitor vitals, diagnose patients, and, in some cases, prescribe medication (though usually under the supervision of a doctor). Nurse practitioners need to get either a master’s degree or higher in nursing and complete thousands of hours of work in a clinical setting. All told, it usually takes six-to-eight years to become a nurse practitioner, compared to 10-to-15 years to become a practicing physician.
Greater Good Health’s platform puts nurse practitioners in often years-long care settings where they manage patients—most of whom are chronically ill, high-risk patients that need to be seen regularly and thoroughly. This allows them to follow up more carefully on patients they have managed for years, instead of catching up on a new patient’s history and treating them in the moment. Patients, meanwhile, don’t have to see a rotating door of clinicians and can talk to a provider they already have an established rapport with.
The one-year-old startup will use the funding to provide learning and development opportunities for its nurse practitioners and also connect them with each other through virtual support groups. Burnout has been an issue across health care during the pandemic, spurring an exodus of nursing and support staff and leaving health care facilities woefully understaffed. Greater Good hopes that keeping nurse practitioners in more stable, years-long care situations and offering them career development opportunities will help retain them and keep them in the workforce longer.
“We want them to be well-rounded and balanced both in work and life, and we see that returns us healthier, more engaged and ready nurse practitioners,” Hastanan said.
Keerthi Vedantam is a bioscience reporter at dot.LA. She cut her teeth covering everything from cloud computing to 5G in San Francisco and Seattle. Before she covered tech, Keerthi reported on tribal lands and congressional policy in Washington, D.C. Connect with her on Twitter, Clubhouse (@keerthivedantam) or Signal at 408-470-0776.
Plus Capital Partner Amanda Groves on Celebrity Equity Investments
On this episode of the L.A. Venture podcast, Amanda Groves talks about how PLUS Capital advises celebrity investors and why more high-profile individuals are choosing to invest instead of endorse.
As a partner at PLUS, Groves works with over 70 artists and athletes, helping to guide their investment strategies. PLUS advises their talent roster to combine their financial capital with their social capital and focus on five investment areas: the future of work, future of education, health and wellness, the conscious consumer and sustainability.
“The idea is if we can leverage these people who have incredible audiences—and influence over that audience—in the world of venture capital, you'd be able to help make those businesses move forward faster,” Groves said.
PLUS works to create celebrity partnerships by identifying each client’s passions and finding companies that align with them, Groves said. From there, the venture firm can reach out to prospective partners from its many contacts and can help evaluate businesses that approach its clients. Recently, PLUS paired actress Nina Dobrev with the candy company SmartSweets after she had told them about her love for its snacks.
Celebrity entrepreneurship has shifted quite a bit in recent years, Groves said. While celebrities are paid for endorsements, Groves said investing allows them to gain equity from the growth of companies that benefit from their work.
“Like in movies, for example, where they're earning a residual along the way, they thought, ‘You know, if we're going to partner with these brands and create a tremendous amount of enterprise value, we should be able to capture some of the upside that we're generating, too’,” she said.
Partnering in this way also allows her clients to work with a wider range of brands, including small brands that often can’t afford to spend millions on endorsements. Investing allows high-profile individuals to represent brands they care about, Groves said.
“The last piece of the puzzle was a drive towards authenticity,” Groves said. “A lot of these high-profile artists and athletes are not interested, once they've achieved some sort of level of success, in partnering with brands that they don't personally align with.”
Hear the full episode by clicking on the playhead above, and listen to LA Venture on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
dot.LA Editorial Intern Kristin Snyder contributed to this post.
Rivian Stock Roller Coaster Continues as Amazon Van Delivery Faces Delays
David Shultz is a freelance writer who lives in Santa Barbara, California. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Outside and Nautilus, among other publications.
Rivian’s stock lost 7% yesterday on the back of news that the company could face delays in fulfilling Amazon’s order for a fleet of electric delivery vans due to legal issues with a supplier. The electric vehicle maker is suing Commercial Vehicle Group (CVG) over a pricing dispute related to the seats that the supplier promised, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The legal issue could mean that Amazon may not receive their electric vans on time. The dispute hinges on whether or not Commercial Vehicle Group is allowed to raise the prices of its seats after Rivian made engineering and design changes to the original version. Rivian says the price hike from CVG violates the supply contract. CVG denies the claim.
Regardless, the dispute could hamper Rivian’s ability to deliver electric vans to Amazon on time. The ecommerce/streaming/cloud computing/AI megacorporation controls an 18% stake in Rivian as one of the company’s largest early investors. Amazon has previously said it hopes to buy 100,000 delivery vehicles from Rivian by 2030.
The stock plunge marked another wild turn for the EV manufacturer. Last week, Rivian shares dropped 21% on Monday after Ford, another early investor, announced its intent to sell 8 million shares. The next few days saw even further declines as virtually the entire market saw massive losses, but then Rivian rallied partially on the back of their earnings report on Wednesday, gaining 28% back by Friday. Then came yesterday’s 7% slide. Today the stock is up another 10%.
Hold on tight, who knows where we’re going next.
David Shultz is a freelance writer who lives in Santa Barbara, California. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Outside and Nautilus, among other publications.