That's a pretty helpful write-up, because I think the value in Periscope is the marketing angle to a wide, international audience. In my experience, there's a f

That's a pretty helpful write-up, because I think the value in Periscope is the marketing angle to a wide, international audience. In my experience, there's a first "wave" of adopters that get to front-run the pack and build momentum. As in, earlier webpages (Maddox) or YouTube acts (Gregory Brothers) rose up when the signal to noise was still pretty good. My view is there's a natural tipping point with any service / platform like Periscope. After studying and forming opinions about various outlets, I'm pretty happy to be on Periscope, and I don't think I'll get on Meerkat or jump at the chance to do a Facebook live stream. As explained in the article, the viewers through the app or through the web enable people to pick an avenue they prefer, and I think that's a strength. Periscope reminds me of the fun of ChatRoulette without the hazardous free-for-all setup. With the continually shifting avenues for marketing and performance streaming (Periscope, Tidal, etc) there's a lot of opportunity for mid-tier acts to have a chance at a wider audience. Is it wise to spam every service? No, but getting a foothold in the ones with a decent return on time invested does seem reasonable, even if that list is about 10 sites long. Managing a digital footprint is pretty cool these days...a long way from sharing MIDI files over 56k modems haha