Given the abundance of music in the modern age, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find ways of getting music out to interested parties using traditional means. Most musicians don’t have the money or backing for widespread advertising and almost certainly couldn’t capitalise on it even if they did. Just because you’ve got a lot of posters or other advertisments out in the world doesn’t mean anyone is actually going to go and listen to your record. There are simply too many people trying the same strategy for it to be effective.

Rather than trying to convince everyone to listen to you in the hope that some might (the mass-market, lots of media approach), it’s probably a lot more fruitful to try the targeted approach.

Start by figuring out which other artists that you’re like and whose fans might like you if they had a chance to listen. It’s important that at this stage that you’re honest about who you sound like (you can’t trick people) and that you aim for relatively small bands (I’ll explain why later).

Got a nice little list of small artists drawn up? Go to last.fm and make a list of people who really like them, probably a hundred or so fans at first. Last.fm is going to be a gold-mine for this because:

• It’s full of people who care enough about music to actually document who they listen to (albeit passively),
• You can separate the hardcore fans from the people who merely listen to them occasionally.

Remember when you’re picking names for your list that you’re not aiming to hit everyone who likes any of the people that you think you’re like. You want to be selective, picking people who REALLY like as many of those artists as possible.

Got a list of people? Now write a relatively personalised message to each one, explaining why you’re contacting them, who you’re like, and that you’re a small artist who would like a small amount of their time. Give away a bunch of your free tunes and thank them for your time. My bet is that if you’re ever going to grow your fan-base that doing it in this way, with people who are engaged with following similar music, will be your best bet.

Why aim for smaller bands? Sure, you might think you sound like Radiohead, but promoting yourself to that fanbase won’t work: they’re too big and have too many fans. Trying to reduce the signal to noise ratio (the number of engaged to passive fans) is going to be too hard to do and, honestly, most of them won’t care about your music.

Now, take this approach and generalise. Whatever it is you do, whether it’s making webcomics, movies, art, anything at all, connect with the most engaged parts of the community that are most likely to like what you do, and enter into as personal a conversation as you can manage. If you try this, you can probably grow a decent community over time. This is obviously not the full story of how things like this can work (you can’t do a one-time, one-way communication and expect to get a fan) but it’s a better starting point than most people have just now.

When I first wrote about my Spotify Premium sign-up, back in Spotify: Week One, I had intended to do a quick update on how that was panning out each week until I had decided which way to go on a more permanent sign-up. As you’ve seen, that’s not really panned out.

I like Spotify. I like how fantastic it is for finding new music, being able to delve into recommendations you’ve had without a massive outlay. Several times over the last few weeks someone has said they like an album and I’ve been listening to it within minutes. That, to me, is excellent and almost certainly a game-changer.

The problem is that I don’t actually use it all that much. Several restrictions (that are outside Spotify’s control) make it less valuable to me:

1. Not being able to use it in the background. This is a killer for me. I only use Spotify on my iPhone and not being able to switch out to Notes or Tweetie is a real problem, as I do that all the time. I don’t like having to plan my usage of these other apps around the music I’m listening to and vice-versa.
2. Lack of decent 3G signal. I work in the city centre with a decent enough 3G signal, but still can’t get a good enough signal to stream an entire album. Typically, I’ve made it half-way through an album before having to pause to let the data catch-up. That’s not very useful.

Like I say, for these issues, Spotify is not to blame but I don’t feel I can live with them just now. I’m somewhat sad to say that I have not continued my Premium subscription, but may try it again in the future (if I Jailbreak, for example).

Many financial experts will tell you that when you save for something that it should be goal-oriented i.e. that it should be for something in particular. There are a number of things in the course of, say, a year that are worth saving up for, where there are no pay-monthly options, or those options come with particularly punitive rates and fees (I’m thinking various forms of insurance, bills etc). There are also usually items that people actually want to save up for: new cars, new furniture, new televisions etc. Whatever they context, people often want to save amount X for item Y by date Z.

In an ideal world, we’d all be excellent planners. We’d be able to set aside the right amount of money each month without any prompting, never dipping into it for other things unless absolutely necessary. In our far from ideal world, we’re not all great budgeters. People frequently pay for item Y from the last source of funds available to them before date Z.

It occurs to me that saving accounts could be a lot smarter in order to facilitate these kinds of transactions. For starters, let users deal with savings in the terms that they actually think. Rather than just being big pots that you move your money into, they should allow you to create many smaller but specific pots: one for each of the items that you are saving up for, with a label so you know exactly what it is for. The savings account should also let you specify how much is needed in each of these pots and the date by which you will need to have reached your goal. That means that at any point in time, you can then see exactly how close you are to achieving your goal.

Let’s go further: give the option of figuring out exactly how much you need to save for each item each month in order to reach your goal on time. Allow the user to automatically transfer that money in each month.

By modelling a savings account in the way that it would actually be used, you can facilitate much better user interaction. Rather than having to work out how close they are to a series of goals over a number of different dates, the account does the work for them. That’s a good thing.

Every Monday several online retailers that I’ve previously used tell me about their one-day only sales. That’s fine by itself, they can try and sell me things if they like; I can always ignore them or block them if I don’t like what I’m getting.

One of these retailers in particular used to be very focused. As I only ever bought gaming-related items from them, they would send me only gaming related materials. To me, that’s the right way of marketing your wares: have a think about what the user actually wants and see if you’re right. For a good while, they had my attention. Given the focus they had put on their emails, I’d usually go and look at the games they had on sale.

Lately, though, it’s been a lot less focused. When I click through onto their website, I no longer have the option of looking at just the items on sale that relate to my interests (in this case, the games on consoles I own). No, instead, they have all the items dumped into 30-odd item pages, with around 6 pages. To me, this is exactly the wrong way of marketing your wares: you’ve gotten my attention and then blown it by expecting me to scour through several pages worth of things I’m not interested in, for one or two things I may be interested in. I may see the first page, but it becomes increasingly unlikely I’ll go any deeper.

This is a pretty common problem: forcing users to do work to find the information they want. While you can prompt them to look at some things YOU want them to see, you can’t divert their focus from the things THEY want to see. Instead, as designers, we should be enabling them to find the things they want, to slice and dice their view of the data you’re handing them however they like. If that means categorisation, fine. If that means building a good search function, then do it.

Failure to focus attention is failure to design. If you haven’t done a good job of designing your information flow then users will begin to dislike your system without realising why. At that point, you’ve lost their attention.

It occurred to me a while ago while clearing out my wallet of annoying pieces of paper that, the vast majority of the time, receipts are largely unnecessary. Most of them you will never use, and either get binned or put into a filing system to never be seen again. The problem is, of course, you don’t know which ones you might need in the future. Will they already have that game you’re gifting? Will the new TV develop a fault? You just don’t know.

So, receipts: a necessary evil (and by “evil”, I clearly mean minor nuisance).

What can we do to improve receipts? First, if we must store them, then let’s make that more convenient i.e. let’s make the receipts digital. This could be relatively straightforward:

• Ask the customer for an email address and send it to that,
• If they pay by credit card, store their email address against it for later use (if you’re worried about security, hash the credit card details),
• If they have a store loyalty card, then use the email address tied to that,
• If they don’t have one or don’t want an email, fallback to paper-based methods.

Simple. As an extra convenience, it might be worthwhile trying to get credit card providers to store a minimal amount of secure data on credit cards. This is definitely possible (though unlikely) and would ease the first-time pain.

Additionally, if we’re doing this electronically, I’d also consider providing a machine-readable version of the receipt; a standard way of marking up sales information. If that were to happen, then you can start to build tooling. You can do all sorts of deep interesting tracking if you have your financial information available electronically. If you imagine the sort of thing that Wesabe do just now, then you can start to see where we could go from there.

Are there issues? Yes, absolutely. If you want to return something, you need to be able to get your receipt (not strictly true, but that’s how you do it easily). In the digital world, that would either mean a print-off or, I imagine, getting the ID from the receipt. That ID should be sufficient to prove that you own a product and bought it in the shop you were in as all the transaction details should be available. The shop would need to rescind the receipt based on the ID to prevent multiple people trying to use the same receipt but that wouldn’t be very hard.

Another issue is that smaller shops would have an obvious overhead to pay. Well, there are two outcomes here: they can not participate (keep things the way they are, which is absolutely fine), or get someone else to run most of the system as a managed service. There’s actually really very little of this that would be shop-specific so it would be easily built and sold on.

That’s another worthwhile point: it could start a nice little niche business. People supplying these systems and building tooling around it.

Now, technically, my understanding is that receipts are not strictly necessary under UK law at all, but are a de facto part of how sales tend to work. To that end, I think that making them digital would be reasonably beneficial. Just an idea.