Michael Walker: YEAAAH! All right. Excited to be here today with my new friend, Gregory Hirshhorn. Gregory is the CEO and co-founder of a company called Too Lost. They’re a fast-growing music distribution and publishing company that helps independent artists and labels expand their reach and generate more revenue. He brings a background both from running independent labels and producing and engineering for major label acts, as well as making successful investments in brands like Liquid Death and Ghost Lifestyle. He combines his passion for music with strong business acumen. I’m excited to have him on the podcast today to talk a little bit about analytics and distribution, and as an indie artist, what are the things you really need to have your finger on to grow a successful music career? So, Gregory, thank you for taking the time to be here on the podcast today.

Gregory Hirschhorn: Yeah, thank you for having me, Michael.

Michael: Absolutely. So to kick things off, maybe for anyone who’s hearing about Too Lost for the first time, could you share a brief introduction to your story, co-founding the company, and what problem you set out to solve?

Gregory: Yeah, for sure. As you mentioned, Too Lost is a fast-growing music distribution, aggregation, and software solution. What we like to say is that we build software-enabled solutions to help artists and music catalog owners grow, manage, and monetize their business better. We offer plenty of different software-enabled solutions, with distribution delivery being one of them. But we also pride ourselves on building great solutions in the reporting and sales data analytics realm, as well as other catalog management tools. We have some awesome features like green lists and block lists, usage discovery, social consumption metrics, and other managerial assistive software solutions. So, it’s a little more than the typical expected delivery functionality from a basic distributor, but still a scalable, mid-touch range software solution.

Michael: Awesome. Yeah. So for people watching right now who are familiar with some of the distribution platforms, like DistroKid...

Gregory: I’d say that Too Lost is definitely more of a feature-heavy, advanced version of what you might be used to from fundamental, minimalist products like TuneCore and DistroKid. Our average user is an artist or label that’s looking for more tools to advance their career. They may be further along in their career, full-time musicians, or bands who are making comparable salaries to everyday jobs in big cities, or even more successful artists. We have artists in the 10, 20, 30, 40 million monthly listener range as well. These artists may be more tour-heavy, managing employees and bigger brands. They’ll find themselves in a more mid-touch, high-touch label services relationship. Similar to what you’d experience at a major label-owned distributor, like Sony’s The Orchard or Virgin Music Group over at Universal, but still independent artist-friendly, and extremely favorable to the artist in terms of ownership. Ultimately, it’s a more hands-on, servicing function from our business—usually involving monetary advances and marketing budgets—but it’s a step up from the DIY approach we offer with our everyday clientele.

Michael: Awesome. Yeah, so it sounds like the gap you fill is that on one side, you have record labels and major labels that handle services for clients, but the majority of royalties and revenue don’t flow to the artists, and there's less control. On the other side, you have platforms like DistroKid that are completely DIY, with no personal touch. What you’ve created fills that gap for artists.

Gregory: Sure. I think the goal has been to offer a hybrid solution where artists can live between both worlds more seamlessly without having to re-administer, re-enter, or renegotiate relationships. There are plenty of artists who find themselves in both parts of those spectrums over their career. For example, they could be a hobbyist who becomes the viral sensation of tomorrow and then wants to enter a full-fledged label service arrangement. But then that virality might dwindle or plateau, and they find themselves being deprioritized by a major label. It’s difficult to scale people systems, but much easier to scale software systems. Music is in a weird intersection right now of being very transactional and network-heavy, but at the same time, we see software automation as assistive in helping us serve more artists and creators without watering down the quality of service they expect at later stages of their careers. We’re different from record labels and everyday distributors because we focus on a hybrid model, knowing that artists will move through different parts of the spectrum over time. We meet them where they’re at today and build solutions to position them for success tomorrow, without having them leave our service to find a better one only to come back a few months later. That’s the goal.

Michael: Got it. Cool. So it sounds like you’ve built a hybrid solution where you can offer more personalized services to the artist, but in a way that’s scalable because you’re focused on developing more of the software side of things, rather than relying on the people side of things. Cool. Especially right now, with AI emerging and more personalized agents becoming possible, it seems like the space is ripe for growth. I’m curious, for the artists listening and watching who may be interested in exploring the platform and learning more about the features, especially in comparison to platforms like DistroKid, could you share some of your favorite features that artists find most valuable?

Gregory: Yeah. I’m going to try to avoid saying, “We do something that someone else doesn’t,” because I’m familiar with some of the competitors in the space. I want to focus more on what we do that ultimately helps clients, rather than comparing ourselves to others. I feel like there are plenty of great solutions out there. Our solution provides some interesting analytics that a lot of clients might not find elsewhere. With new products coming out, this gives us a significant edge. For example, Spotify’s Discovery Mode can be advantageous but also confusing and problematic. Our goal is to build transparent dashboards and KPIs to help artists better understand these tools as soon as they’re released. We work very closely with DSP partners like Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and others to build out different dashboards and analytics that provide more transparency. One of the cool features we’ve added recently is our Discovery Mode analytics dashboard. It shows total streams on platforms like Spotify, but you can also break down how many of those streams came directly from Discovery Mode, along with the corresponding monetary deductions. Discovery Mode is a 30% deduction by Spotify on royalties, pre-deducted before payment. To avoid clients being confused by lower per-stream royalty rates, we show real-time data on streams, deductions by track, and even break it down by country. We also show how many streams are premium versus free. The ability to break this down specifically for Discovery Mode is, I think, unique to us. It’s been an exciting way for artists to navigate which tracks to opt into those betas versus leaving some out.

Michael: Just one question—most folks are probably familiar with Discovery Mode, but for anyone unfamiliar, could you explain briefly what it means?

Gregory: Yeah, I can summarize it. Every mode was a new feature, a beta program pushed by Spotify to allow you to better market your music. With hundreds of thousands of songs coming out every week on platforms like Spotify, it can be very difficult to get your music discovered by new listeners. Spotify, with their agenda of trying to retain more revenue, has aligned their mission with, "Hey, we can provide a little bit more gas to the engine algorithmically and show people your music." But to do so, we're going to charge for that marketing service. However, instead of charging up front, we'll just deduct revenues from streams that are ultimately garnered from the algorithmic boost.

To my understanding, there are certain sources of targets, primarily radio and other algorithmic Spotify sources—not like direct listeners who would already be listening anyway. They charge a 30% commission for the streams you get from those sources during your participation in Discovery Mode.

And I'm definitely an advocate for artists making more. It is sometimes concerning when products like this launch because they can feel like a race to the bottom in terms of how much you're supposed to be paid per listen or download. It's definitely conflicting. At the same time, I've seen tremendous results from people using this from an opportunistic standpoint—finding ways to amplify songs that are already getting solid algorithmic attention. It can be extremely beneficial when done the right way, and not with a gambler's mindset, but with a strategic approach. For example, these songs are seeing significant algorithmic boosts on TikTok and maybe some Spotify traction. I’ll put some gasoline on the fire, try it for a month. If it doesn’t work, I’ll take it out of the program. No long-term commitment necessary here.

We've seen songs go from 10,000 streams a day to 300,000 streams a day, and it's very cool to see that because that's an awesome breakout tool. There are very few marketing tools that can drive that much traction in a 30-day time span. So, I'm a supporter of Discovery Mode when used thoughtfully. And we built out tools on an analytics and monitoring side to allow you to better understand if it's working and whether it's worth keeping in the program or opting out and trying a different song.

These are good examples of how we provide dashboards and analytics capabilities for all of our clients, specifically catered to new tools and resources being added to streaming services. I think a lot of our competitors aren't necessarily innovating as much anymore. Many of their founding teams have sold their businesses and are no longer involved in updating the service. Fundamentally, distribution at those places works, but it's difficult to get products like what we’re pushing into the user's hands when their teams aren't necessarily built for growth, but rather for retention of clientele and market dominance. It's very fun for us to be disruptive in a way where we can add these types of resources to our clients, helping them make better, smarter decisions with how they market and deploy resources into their music careers.

Michael: Cool, man. Yeah. So, it sounds like because of the foundation of the company, you're able to explore more, be more creative, and test out these new features. You also have dashboards that some of the more traditional models are slower moving on, maybe more bureaucratic. That's an exciting thing for you to be able to be on the forefront of. Any other prime examples of things you're excited about or new features you're working on?

Gregory: I feel like today, with the news, I'm sure you saw in the trades with UMG's lawsuit against Believe. It's a pretty crazy development. I wouldn't say momentous because it's definitely not good or bad, but it's definitely concerning. It's an interesting development in the independent sector, seeing a major label very publicly go after a competitor for what they consider blatant copyright infringement at scale.

We've been pioneers in compliance technology for the music business. One of the things we do, if anyone is listening and is a Too Lost client, they would already know this. If you're thinking of becoming one, you should be mindful of this: when you're onboarding into a Too Lost account for the first time, you're prompted to scan your ID and take a selfie. I get a lot of pushback from that sometimes. I think there's a lot of clientele who genuinely just want to stay anonymous or aren't necessarily bad actors, but they feel like, "Why should I be asked to do this when other players in the space don’t ask me?" And that's a totally fair question.

Ultimately, I've mentally discounted that internally with my team. We know that we might lose some business from this in the long run, but I think it was definitely an awesome decision. The clients who engage, who aren’t bad actors, feel safer. The trust in the business has this "bank-level security" mindset, where they feel like they have a complete relationship with us and vice versa. It takes six seconds, and don't get me wrong, it feels like an excessive amount of time, but when we see stuff like this happening with Believe and UMG, I'm sure Toon Corps and the Believe team wish they had every single client's ID for the bad actors.

Michael: Just for anyone who hasn’t seen the news, maybe you could share what happened.

Gregory: Yeah, as of a couple of hours ago, Universal Music Group filed a $500 million lawsuit in SDNY, the Southern District Courts of New York, against Believe, the French conglomerate that owns and controls TuneCore and a bunch of other independent catalogs—an amazing independent business that Universal is claiming has blatantly infringed upon some of their superstar acts and their works, millions of works, they claim, and are seeking damages.

It’s very crazy because I’ve been a big advocate for KYC (Know Your Customer) technology, which banks use. When you go to open a bank account, they ask for an ID. It's not because they're trying to arrest you; it’s just because they want to make sure they understand who they’re working with, which I think is totally fair and makes sense. If you're going to be rendering payments to clients, you should know who you're rendering payments to. Distributors have known this would cause some headaches and friction with some clientele. There's also an awareness that there are some bad actors out there, and you can kind of put your hands up and say, "We're just the platform, we're just going to identify ourselves, let artists do what they have to do," but in the long run, it's really not a good look for the entire music business to be rampantly incubating potential fraud.

I think there’s a cleaner, more compliant space when you have these regulatory or somewhat restrictive boundaries. I think the six-second ID process we added was an awesome way for us to solve that headache. I think a lot of distributors are going to start to adopt things like this. I’ve been saying that for years. I got the guys over at Symphonic Distribution, a huge music distribution company based here in the U.S., to adopt this. I’ve seen companies like TikTok with their own in-house distribution service, SoundOn, also use KYC technology.

I think it's going to happen more and more, especially after this lawsuit and seeing how this pans out. But what I'm getting at is that we've been doing this long enough now where we've built out solid ways for people to monitor their own impact. There are a lot of artists that might not realize this, but being added accidentally to the wrong playlist could ultimately drive fraudulent streams. Even sampling a work they don’t have permission to sample—though they think, "Hey, I'm not that big of an artist; it could become a big song, but it could also be a huge headache."

We do a good job of adding tools to address these things. For example, we have audio recognition software where you can upload your song to detect if there are any samples being used. We also have artificial stream analytics, so anytime your music is being artificially consumed by bots, whether intentional or unintentional, it will show you the percentage of streams coming from known bot accounts and the source of those streams. This way, you can better address them. We add these types of things into the platform regularly across various DSP partners like Deezer, Spotify, Ngami, and TikTok. All this information is available to our clients and staff.

I think that level of transparency, but also cooperation with the DSPs, has allowed us to grow at scale without the concern of rampant fraud. It also gives our clients transparency on how to better manage their music careers. Good clients, good artists, good musicians don’t want to worry about these headaches. They don’t want to deal with the disaster of their music being taken offline because they paid for a promotional service that was really just a bot farm and it screwed them over. This transparency has helped them better address things with our team and directly with DSPs when they see issues.

But I think what you see with the Believe and UMG situation is just how problematic and expensive it can get when things spiral out of control.

Michael: Wow. So it sounds like the issue is that because of the low threshold for entry with some of these platforms, it enables the ability for bad actors to come on. And sometimes you get paid money that is fraudulent.

Gregory: I don’t think it’s just bad actors. I think that’s a lot of it, but I think it’s also just people who maybe don’t understand copyright law. Sure, you should understand the laws of the industry, but if you're just a hobbyist musician wanting to upload music to Spotify, and there's no real quality control or compliance technology in place with a company like TuneCore in this scenario to prevent you from uploading that stuff, like... Sure, it’s technically your fault, but it’s also kind of theirs, right? They should be able to validate and confirm if you’re able to upload this stuff or not. It shouldn’t be up to you to understand the copyright laws of the United States and other nations.

So again, we have to be mindful. Obviously, career musicians and experienced teams with smart people around them might be able to prevent this stuff from happening, but there are plenty of novices trying to get started. There's nothing wrong with that, but platforms need to do a better job. Companies like Too Lost need to do a better job of making sure that these people don’t find themselves in really problematic situations due to the ease of upload. It’s still harboring fraud, right?

So, I think we do a good job with it. It could come off to artists who don’t really understand it as restrictive, but when we see headlines like we saw this morning, with the Believe and UMG issue, I think in the long run, people will start to realize that we were early adopters of a system that will be necessary in the coming years.

Michael: Super interesting. So it sounds like, in the short term, you're willing to put up a bit of friction in the onboarding process because you know it’s creating a platform that’s safer and more reliable, so it’s less open to things like fraud. It does seem like, right now, with the rise of artificial intelligence and how it's easier and easier to create deceptive content or bots or deep fakes, verification and the ability to, as you're saying, know your customers is becoming more and more important.

So that’s cool that that’s something you’ve focused on from the beginning.

Gregory: I’ll also add that there’s always been a path for dispute. If I feel like I wrote this song, it’s my right to create that claim and have a conversation with the rights holder. The issue is, at what scale does it become too tricky? We want to make sure that stores and services want to work with us, right? If Spotify comes to me and says, “Hey, this is a mess, we don’t want any part in this,” every good artist, every good label that works with us is going to be impacted by this.

We have to remember, we're not just uploading your stuff into stores and services and leaving it there. It’s an ongoing licensing and hosting arrangement. So if we get penalized by stores and services, a lot of the time that stuff falls on to our larger client base. We have a responsibility to make sure we’re compliant and compatible. It’s not just about keeping our artists and clients safe; it’s also about our partners at the stores and services.

When you have industry disputes, like what’s going on with Universal and TuneCore and Believe, what about all those good artists? There are good artists that use TuneCore. When I say “good,” I don’t mean subjectively good at making music; I mean artists who are genuinely trying to put out their art into the world and aren’t looking to gamify the system for just monetary gain or frivolous content.

Those are the clients I’m concerned about, who might face unavailability or be restricted from certain things because they chose to work with a partner that isn’t necessarily up to par from a compliance standpoint. That’s what we’re trying to address with our compliance technology—hey, we know there’s a little friction, but as AI and machine learning in music continue to grow, the rights holder will still be there. Someone will be representing that content on behalf of whatever mechanisms they’re using to make the music. As long as you actually own the rights to that music, you're good to go, but we need to confirm you own those rights before you upload content. That seems like a very fair expectation.

Michael: Makes sense. Yeah. And if I remember correctly, not so long ago, Spotify started cracking down on distributors and essentially said, "You are responsible for doing this." It sounds like you've built your foundation in a way that aligns with that.

Gregory: For sure.

Michael: Okay. So, yeah, I'm curious. Obviously, right now, predictions get more and more challenging as the rate of technological growth gets faster and faster. But based on where things have grown in the past five to ten years, I'm curious if you're trying to pull out a crystal ball and predict where things are headed, especially for independent musicians who might be watching this. I'm talking about their music, careers, and distribution. Do you see any trends or predictions for where things are headed?

Gregory: So, I'll start from kind of a top-down perspective. You look at the major labels and their announcements to shareholders and what they're modeling their deals on going forward. I say that because most independent artists, especially those just starting to build their careers, may not need to focus on major label trends. But I do think it's important to watch what they're doing since they shape the industry's listenership. They're the responsible parties representing the most important artists culturally at the moment.

You see them shifting their attention to distribution-style deals and trying to acquire distribution companies. There's a reason for that. I think they recognize that the industry trend is, whether you like it or not, becoming a content-driven industry. It's very... I'm not saying quality isn't important anymore, but quantity does matter. I think the attention span of listeners is out of the control of artists and creators. And it's unfortunate because, as a music fan, I love and care about quality music. But I also understand that younger generations, as well as general listeners today, might not be as obsessed with new music or music theory like we are. They're more like traditional radio consumers, and they want more content. Their attention spans are shorter. I mean, apps like TikTok show that our attention spans are now equivalent to that of a tree frog. It's concerning.

But I think there are ways to navigate that and understand what listeners want today. You see it with the creation of shorter music, more frequent releases. Even if you create an amazing full-fledged album, I think it's important to drop a lot of those songs as singles on a consistent cadence, similar to how YouTubers have scheduled content. They drop videos every Wednesday or every Friday. There's a reason for that — it brings predictability and a systematic feel to their audience.

Although I still think albums are important from a creative standpoint, if you're looking at it from a career perspective, I think dropping singles is the way to go. It depends on what you want. To answer your question more bluntly: If you're an artist who just wants to make music because you love it, and you're not necessarily looking to turn it into a career, then you can release music that makes you happy, and that's amazing. But if you want to make music your full-time career and replace or supplement your job, I think you need to approach it like how networks treat television or how YouTubers treat YouTube. You have to have a cadence. Unless you're at the top, like in the iPod era or an artist like The Weeknd, where you can release an album every once in a while and still have a global fanbase, then weekly schedules are important. Content is key. Variations of your songs matter.

The most successful clients on our platform are the ones who upload consistently. Although, at times, it might water down quality, I don't think it always does. It depends on the type of music you're making. But you need to treat it like a job. I'd rather be scheduling releases every week than working a nine-to-five job. And I say that even though I'm in an office right now. But if I were an artist trying to replace my day job with music, I would still prefer a weekly release schedule than the alternative.

I also see a lot of negativity toward companies like Spotify and Apple Music, with people saying, "They don't pay enough." I think people are shooting the messenger. It's unfortunate because Spotify and these companies aren't the reason people stopped paying for music. Piracy is a big factor, and the devaluation of recorded music happened long before Spotify. If anything, there's more availability for listeners than ever before. With 400 million subscribers on Spotify, that's a lot of ears ready to hear your music. If you look at Spotify as a partner, like a digital jukebox, it's a great tool for hosting your music and pushing it in front of the right people. It could be very advantageous.

We see a lot of artists now making millions of dollars a year, ones who might have never made it in the CD era or the early '90s, all because they figured out how to get in front of the right people via platforms like Spotify. They can do this all from their bedrooms, and I think that's awesome.

I also understand the struggle of a sea of new music being released every day. I think the best approach is not to fight the tide, but to join in. You have to release music too. This is why I recommend a weekly cadence. Again, creating music isn't easy, and I heard Daniel Ek from Spotify say something I didn't necessarily love, where he said, "Music is so easy to make now, or it's so affordable to make." Sure, it's easier to manufacture a solid recording, but you can't discount the amount of creative input required to make a good song.

If you can figure out what your audience wants and make music in that realm, it works best when you try a lot of things. But if a song starts gaining traction, make more music. You have to think of it like a business if you want it to be a business. If you want to replace your career with a music career, you can't just assume it's going to take off magically. Treat it like a manufacturer/vendor standpoint — give the people what they want. Your best chances come from weekly uploads and taking advantage of the programs from these DSPs. View them as friends, not enemies. And create value outside of streaming platforms.

I know some people preach that you can't make money from streaming, but I don't agree with that notion. We pay out over $50 million a year to artists and labels, and these are all independent companies. Some of these artists are making more than doctors who've been in their careers for 20 years. Some of them are just 16 or 17 years old. Don’t believe the narrative that you can't make money off streams — you absolutely can. It's competitive, but it’s still a viable way to make money.

There are also platforms like Even, Cameo, and Patreon, which provide additional ways to create value for your fanbase. But streaming is still a great way to create consistent, recurring revenue, especially if you consistently release new music. Music won’t be as relevant as it was on day one, but it can still have moments of virality. The key is to keep dropping new music and treat it like a content economy. That's the best way to approach music right now.

Michael: Super helpful. So it sounds like the main piece of advice is to think of your business like a content creator. Have a content engine where you're dropping music weekly, like YouTubers who stick to a schedule.

Gregory: I agree. I think that approach is for artists who really want to make it a career. But I don’t want to discount the fact that there are plenty of artists who just want to create art. For them, this advice doesn't necessarily apply. But for those looking to make money off their music careers, this strategy works.

Michael: Absolutely. That makes perfect sense. So the main model you're seeing emerge is a weekly music drop or having a content engine, like a manufacturing company. That definitely rings true for some of our top clients, like First to 11. They have over 520 million views on their YouTube channel. Ryan, from First to 11, showed me their engine at one of our recent events, and it's exactly what you're describing — they’ve got it down to a science.

Gregory: Artists have cracked it. We have a lot of really, again, I think Too Lost represents over 400,000 artists and labels now. And definitely, plenty of them aren't looking at it like a career necessarily, but we have plenty of really interesting artists that, again, I wouldn't necessarily see selling out a full-fledged tour in the CD era, but they are able to garner millions and millions of listeners every month by just keeping up a weekly cadence. You see it more and more with the artists that are actually from the streaming era, and it's... again, I don't think this solution applies to all types of creators, but I do think, from a generalization standpoint, this feedback is worth trying. I don't know, I think there's a narrative that says you're watering down your content if you're dropping frequently, or maybe there are certain artists who treat their art like scarcity is king. It's like, I hear that, but I think you're going to have a much tougher time breaking through the noise if you're dropping one song and just hoping it hits the right people. Right? I'm not doubting that it could work for some, but I just think the majority of artists and creators are going to benefit from a volume of content approach. And that's why our system and business is built on volume-centric distribution: unlimited uploads, unlimited profiles. The goal is to allow and empower users to release as much music as they want, whenever they want. I think that's worth utilizing in your toolkit, because I can watch the data from 400,000 artists and see the millions of dollars they're making across the calendar year. I can see who's doing well and who's not. And I can confidently say the people that are dropping consistently and treating it, like you said, like an engine, are the ones doing the best.

Michael: Awesome. So, Greg, man, this has been a great conversation. I really appreciate you taking the time to share a little bit about what you see that's working right now. A lot of this information, I think, isn't necessarily accessible to an independent artist; a lot of it kind of comes from existing structures. So, thank you for building this platform. And, for anyone that's listening or watching this right now who wants to explore the platform, could you share briefly who you think would get the most value from it? Who is it really designed for, and how can they get started?

Gregory: I'd say artists that have an existing catalog in other distribution platforms, or who have utilized platforms before, definitely could take advantage of some of our content migration and catalog migration tools and give it a go. But really, any artist that owns and controls their catalog and hasn't assigned it to a record label. I'd say managers definitely, especially smarter operators who understand the music business and how to read and analyze the data we're making available to them, and record labels. Record labels that are volume-centric and are looking to manage significant catalogs, with the ability to analyze and interpret that data. Maybe they have data scientists on payroll—it's very accessible for them as well. You can get there by going to TooLost.com (T-O-O-L-O-S-T.com). There's a public pricing page with a very transparent overview of what we offer and what we don't offer. If it makes sense to you, you can definitely take a stab at it. It's definitely more of an open-source attitude with how we approach the types of users and use cases.

Michael: Fantastic. Well, like always, we'll put all the links in the show notes for easy access. And Greg, thanks so much for being on the episode today.

Gregory: Yeah, thank you, Michael, for having me. Have a good one.

Michael: YEAAAH!