Bands Should Give Away Their Music With Every Concert Ticket Sold
from the get-them-hooked dept
Well-known music industry commentator Bob Lefsetz has wavered back and forth on the question of whether or not music should be free, but lately it seems that he's gone completely into the "free" camp -- which is nice to see. One of his latest posts explains why bands should figure out ways to give away their music with each concert ticket. As he points out, concert revenue is where most bands make their money these days, so you want to increase the value of those tickets as much as possible. And, generally speaking, many people go to concerts to hear the music they already know. So the more the band can make sure people actually know the band's songs, the happier the fans are going to be at concerts (and the more they'll be willing to pay).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bob lefsetz, business models, concerts, free music, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take your own advice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The name of the game for the bands is maximizing the money in their pockets. If giving away music increases their overall revenue through concert sales, promotional merchandise, name recognition, etc., then it's the logical thing to do.
As someone pointed out, the musicians get pathetically little of the money you shell out for a CD. So why not lose a little there to increase revenue from the high-profit parts of the business?
As a couple of other people pointed out it probably won't work for every band. (Although the Grateful Dead seem to do well with a similar strategy.) However it's clearly a viable strategy for a lot of bands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's change the world one unrepresentative anecdote at a time!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Johnny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throwing CDs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ramblings from the rooftop
Tonight, the songs that emminate are those of Bono.
Coincidence, I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of it this way...
SCENARIO 1: You pay upwards of $20 for a stupid plastic disc, which is easily scratched and unrepairable BTW.
SCENARIO 2: You pay $40 to get into a concert and STILL get the contents of the stupid plastic disc. The environment wins because less plastic had to be manufactured and shipped, the band wins because they had to put up less funds to have the album pressed and all the costs associated. Who loses? Rich guys in suits who have no musical talent and no right to select what music is popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They (the bands whom are playing at said concert) could but together songs, say one or two a piece, and offer a "cd" in form of digital download with the purchase. Or maybe a recording of show available a while after the tour is over. Just an extra incentive, or a gimick to keep them coming.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand
Thanks for including me. I won't soon forget it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a bad idea, but...
Conversely, I spend LOTS of money on mp3 downloads from Amazon, so I think I'm doing my part for the musicians. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a bad idea, but...
The industry should put the music online for free as a way to promote the artist, then collect on merchandice and concerts. People that go to concerts aren't going to change their concert habits based on the availability of music and how they acquire it; they'll keep on going to concerts. The difference now is that more music will be heard by more people, which will, in turn, attract more concert goers. Not to mention, the industry would stop wasting its money on ridiculous lawsuits, which alone would probably make up for the difference in revenue lost in not selling cds, considering they wouldn't have to pay to get them made anymore.
That's a long thought (and sentense), but it's the solution to this "crisis" in the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a bad idea, but...
The three or four concerts I've been to in my life have created some of my best memories. Now, I have a jones for the best seats in the house, so I don't do bleachers and I'd stay home before I ever accepted a ticket in the nosebleed section. I would say that I've been to far fewer concerts than anyone else I know, but the ones I've been to were the best that they could be. Treat yourself just once in your life to the best concert seat in the house. You won't regret it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a bad idea, but...
Honestly, I don't even generally *like* live music. I prefer the '*perfect* version that usually accompanies the albums... (You know, the kind with nobody yelling in the background.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a bad idea, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a bad idea, but...
Later my friends - and some of their teenage children - were shocked when I told them. 'You walked out on the Wallflowers? Do you KNOW how great of a band they are?' So yeah taste is all subjective, I was just annoyed that good time was being wasted with an opening act that stunk, when I paid good money to see a real star.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to make money??
I also don't buy concert or band shirts.
So my question becomes - where would a band make money from the types like me if they're giving the music away for free?? I don't want to be called a "leach" because I'd gladly (and do) pay for the music. If the music is free, then there's no possibility of the band making money from me.
I feel quite comfortable saying that there's others like me, too.
And what about bands that no longer tour because they've broken up, dissolved, on hiatus, etc.??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to make money??
Well, a few points in response to this.
(1) No one said this was the *only* part of the business model. It's just one part. Take a look at what Trent Reznor, Jill Sobule, Maria Schneider and others have done in embracing free music and putting together a much wider business model behind it.
(2) There will always be some people who just don't pay, and that's fine. Just as there are some people who read this site and never click on an ad. Do I think you're "leaching" on this site? No, of course not. The trick isn't to get everyone to pay, it's to get some people to pay by giving them something worth paying for.
(3) You say you're willing to pay for the music, but if every other band out there is giving away their music for free, and this one band is charging, they're not going to get very far.
And what about bands that no longer tour because they've broken up, dissolved, on hiatus, etc.??
What about jobs you no longer have? Do you still get paid for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to make money??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For instance, the business models that you're complaining about were created pre-Internet, when getting heard by people was the issue. Now, it's no longer an issue. Lilly Allen put herself on MySpace and YouTube before she was picked up by a record label, and she's huge now. But if course, the her label treats her so horribly, I know from reading the constant 'poor artist' comments that she must have been tricked into signing by her label and she's now absolutely broke.
I definitely agree that the industry-typical business model is broken. Lily Allen just goes to show that the publicity and coverage are available without a label, and Radiohead and other bands shows that the money is there without the label. Now we, the customers, just have to wait for the artists to stop complaining and start changing. If these artists chose to sell thier music from thier own website, they would receive 100% of the profits, and I'd be happy buying there as well.
There are probably dozens of innovative ways to make money from the music industry without the labels. When the artists decide to make these changes, we will start to see them. Free content to promote merchandising is one of them, but I'd like to think that we're going to see more and better ideas (each of which is a 'solution') come out of this industry.
I don't want merchandise and I don't like concerts. So it seems like, in my case, I'll be getting thier very vaulable product for free. And I'm an asshole for saying I'm happy to keep on paying for it? Keep thinking, buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course there will be resistance to an idea like this.
Recording companies - with new technology are almost as obsolete as the CD's are now.
I have a new car Stereo - never put a single CD in it - don't need to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't expect any band to start handing out CDs at a concert, selling CDs and merch at their concerts is how they make most of their money. And, I think the price of the ticket is for the show, and that's good enough. But, if they gave me a free download with every CD or shirt I buy at a show then they stand a better chance of selling more merch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb
Net result? Higher prices.
And yes, you could use a coupon or download or something similar, but that's taking money away from your label, which in all likelyhood isn't going to be too pleased with the idea, and will want something in return. Like part of your ticket sales.
Net result? Higher prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensation is Varied
"What about jobs you no longer have? Do you still get paid for them?"
Valid payment systems that pay after the job is over:
1. I let go a person from my employment. They no longer have the job any more. They collect unemployment (which I pay as employer) for 6 months or so. Here is a regular job that has ended and no work is being done and the person is being paid. Would you consider this to be valid?
2. Draw against commission. Someone does outside advertising sales and is paid minimum wage. They bring in a couple of new clients that they are contracted to be paid a commission based on a percent of the ads sold for a period of one year and then nothing is owed. The sales person quits after 2 months and continues to be paid the commission as per the contract for the next 10 months even though they are not working in that job. Would you consider this to valid and proper?
3. You are a lawyer and take on a case on a contingency basis charging noting to the client. You do a couple filings and do hardly any more work on it. 2 years later you get news to case is going to be settled because the company that the suit was filed against is being sold and is clearing out all its nuisance litigation pre-sale. Once again no work or job is being done but money is made. Would you consider this to be valid and proper that the lawyer gets paid?
4. Tech companies issue stock options to employees to attract top talent when money is tight. Someone leaves the company after vesting and no longer works there. Subsequently there is an IPO and that prior employee nets a ton of money. Would you consider this to be valid and proper?
5. My father retired from a large company and gets a pension, social security, and lifetime health insurance. Would you consider that to be valid and proper even though he is no longer doing that job?
6. I could present a description of how some of your income from Techdirt is unearned (meaning from investments of time and money or other people's labor) but I would be guessing a little too much.
7. Not a complete list- add your own examples if you wish.
I fail to see how your and other posters continued assertions that when a job stops, payment should stop has any validity based on the above even cursory sketches of the myriad and creative models for how people can be compensated (after the job is over) even in normal jobs. I would ask your readers to consider if the above models are sufficient (and even beneficial) for regular industry then why should they be considered off limits for creative types (songwriters, bands, etc)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compensation is Varied
Gov't pays unemployment, not your last employer. Nice try.
2. Draw against commission. Someone does outside advertising sales and is paid minimum wage. They bring in a couple of new clients that they are contracted to be paid a commission based on a percent of the ads sold for a period of one year and then nothing is owed. The sales person quits after 2 months and continues to be paid the commission as per the contract for the next 10 months even though they are not working in that job. Would you consider this to valid and proper?
This is paying out your contract, it's not continually paying you any time your work is used.
3. You are a lawyer and take on a case on a contingency basis charging noting to the client. You do a couple filings and do hardly any more work on it. 2 years later you get news to case is going to be settled because the company that the suit was filed against is being sold and is clearing out all its nuisance litigation pre-sale. Once again no work or job is being done but money is made. Would you consider this to be valid and proper that the lawyer gets paid?
That's catching up on payment for work done. That's not payment after you are no longer on the job.
4. Tech companies issue stock options to employees to attract top talent when money is tight. Someone leaves the company after vesting and no longer works there. Subsequently there is an IPO and that prior employee nets a ton of money. Would you consider this to be valid and proper?
That's an ownership stake and it's in exchange for the work done (stock grants are over time, you don't keep earning more after you leave the company). There is no additional compensation after the work is done.
5. My father retired from a large company and gets a pension, social security, and lifetime health insurance. Would you consider that to be valid and proper even though he is no longer doing that job?
Social security, of course, is gov't paid again. Not sure what kind of pension he has, but most pensions these days are defined contribution, not benefit, so you're actually not getting compensated, really. Basically, money was put away for you that you're now earning interest on -- that's not getting compensated after the fact -- that's just interest on compensation when it happened.
So... you haven't shown an example where someone continues to get paid every time their work is used after they've left their employer. What you've shown is either gov't payments which you pretend are from the company, or a misunderstanding of compensation structures, or confusing ownership with compensation.
So... try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb
I have little respect for a solution until I know what it costs, and any product without a pricetag is wrong. From my side, I don't choose a solution until I look at it in relation to the cost-- for only then can I fully determine it's worth.
Understanding this, I did a little research and was shocked that some ticket company may charge fees upwards 30% of the ticket value. It's no wonder why no one tours!
What may hold some promise is an increase in technology throughout the product's value chain. For example, if an operational gain could be realized thru internet-based ticket sales instead of traditional routes, then there may be an opportunity to sell content at time of ticketpurchase as an up or cross sell.
Using this concept, I could see two opportunities-
Ticket sellers could add content to their product catalog
AND
Content sellers could add tickets to their product catalog
In relation to the first opportunity, I could see this value-add working nicely with, say the ticketmasters of the world, or even one of the many Fandango, movies.com, or similar properties to sell movie soundtracks etc.
In relation the the second opportunity, iTunes, napster, etc would be a great distribution channel for concert tickets. It's possible they already have a profile based on your music tastes, and location (billing) information along with CRM and campaign management tools. But when it comes to attracting the prime customer segment, an iTunes customer may be the crown jewel. They seem to attract a more prime customer unlike like the smörgåsbord customer of some of the other places. The best solution would probably be web services-based so it didn't lock customers into a specific platform-- This would allow a fan to buy tickets on iTunes as well as Zune Marketplace, etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thats what ive been saying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been saying this for years
Now, does this translate to, say, authors? It'd be hard to justify that someone would have to write a novel in front of an audience to make their money. So, obviously, there are some important differences between the PERFORMING arts and other types of art/expression, at least as far as business models go. So, let's just leave it at musicians for _this_ debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Music With Concert Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Music With Concert Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Music With Concert Tickets
Human morality have a funny way of skirting economic sense and moral/ethical code.
Don't let that get to you. We're still in a transition phrase when it come to adapting. So we're still in the process of getting rid of the incompetent businessmen. When this is over, there will probably be nobody saying copying musics is stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Music With Concert Tickets
Do you work for free? Artist have to eat, too.
Regardless, bands already give their music away with tickets. They call the giving away a 'concert.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Music With Concert Tickets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Terrible Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get off your high horse
We are all free to choose. Choose to buy, eat, even kill.
I choose to do or not do these things, and so "should" eveyone else ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't anyone here have a good indie scene in thier city?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...bands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]