Musician Talks About Success In Getting Fans To Pay For The Album Before Its Created
from the another-good-example dept
Whenever we talk about business models involving giving away "infinite" goods and charging for "scarce" goods, one of the points that we try to emphasize (though it doesn't always come across) is that some of the best business models are ones where you get paid for the creation of content, rather than copies of existing content. When it comes to music, we've suggested a variety of options, and pointed to stories like Jill Sobule and Maria Schneider, who have set up models where fans chip in to pay for the production of the album itself -- and, in return get lots of extras back in return (including access to the musician, early releases, credits, etc.).Mathew Ingram points us to a blog post by Mark Kelly, the keyboard player with the band Marillion, who have actually been using just such a method of producing their albums for almost a decade:
In 1999 we released our final contracted album for Castle Records and, in anticipation of the way we planned to do business in the future, called it Marillion.com. We had already collected the email addresses of more than 20,000 fans through free CDs, downloads, etc. and by asking these fans to order and pay for the upcoming CD in advance, we were able to finance the writing and recording.This is another fantastic example of the business model in action: focusing on connecting with your true fans, focusing on selling scarce goods (remember, the creation of content is a scarcity -- existing content is not) and giving people a real reason to buy (such as "special edition pre-order CDs with 128-page hardcover books containing beautiful artwork").
We maximised the profit from the pre-order by cutting out the record companies, distributors and retailers, manufacturing and shipping direct. We also released the album in the shops through an independent distributor to reach the fans not on the internet.
We released three more albums between 2001 and 2007 using this business model and despite continuing falls in CD sales worldwide we have managed to shield ourselves from the worst by continuing to build our database of email addresses, currently more than 65,000, and by offering special edition pre-order CDs with 128-page hardcover books containing beautiful artwork.
I'm sure many people still download our music illegally but the real hardcore fans want the special editions and are willing to pay £25 or more for them.
Unfortunately, after describing this great business model, Kelly veers off on a tangent that doesn't seem to fit with the point he makes in the first half. Even though his band has figured out how to profit without having to worry about "piracy," he seems to support the idea that ISPs should be responsible for file sharing, and he doesn't seem to recognize how promoting file sharing himself would help create more fans to add to that 65,000-strong email list. But, still, even though the end of the post doesn't quite match with the first half, it's great to see another band find success with this sort of business model.
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: abundance, business models, copyright, marillion, mark kelly, music, scarcity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmmmm...Arts Being Supported by Patrons.
Hey, didn't that model work for Mozart, DaVinci and pretty much every famous artist I can think of prior to the emergence of Record Companies?
Everything old is new again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmm...Arts Being Supported by Patrons.
See Music is Expensive, Copies are Free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmm...Arts Being Supported by Patrons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rediculous
But mainly I disagree with this because it goes against everything I believe drives, or at least should drive, great music creation; motivation. The greatest music comes from the heart and personal life experience, not cash-money. When you throw money at a musician to make a CD of their choosing, you are creating a motive in their head to make a piece of music that goes outside their previous guidelines of making music true to themselves.
It's just like the movies, as was proven with the latest Batman. Make a good movie and the consumer's will pay to see it (in the millions). Make a great body of musical work and your fans will substantially grow resulting in increased concert sales, album sales and overpriced merchandise growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rediculous
Okay, so you don't want to do so. But plenty of people do. And, part of the reason why is that most musicians who do this give those people added benefits (special signed editions, access to concerts, access to pre-release music, etc.) that they want as fans.
But mainly I disagree with this because it goes against everything I believe drives, or at least should drive, great music creation; motivation. The greatest music comes from the heart and personal life experience, not cash-money.
Um, you do realize that almost all music today is produced for money? Yes?
I don't get it. First we get criticized that the business models we describe won't make people money, and now we're getting criticized because they *do* make people money?!?
It's just like the movies, as was proven with the latest Batman. Make a good movie and the consumer's will pay to see it (in the millions). Make a great body of musical work and your fans will substantially grow resulting in increased concert sales, album sales and overpriced merchandise growth.
Huh? I thought you just said that money corrupts the creative process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rediculous
A little off-topic, but I was referring to the quality of the goods. Like I said earlier, sell me a CD worth buying and I'll purchase it. Sell me a CD with one or two decent songs with the rest as "filler," and I'll pick it apart on itunes, or better yet, get the good songs from a friend. Music is, after all, a social thing. But this leads into piracy and is better-suited for a different time/place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rediculous
Musicians will produce a better product if they are not working construction jobs or working at the department of motor vehicles 40 hours a week and then trying to create music in spare hours. This is true for any artist. DaVinci and Mozart would not have created much of anything if they worked a day job packing freight or running an office.
Movie making is not a valid comparison to music production. Making a movie is an industrial processes involving hundreds of experts, technicians, and support staff and is too complex to involve the consumer directly until after production and then only as part of the godless marketing machine.
If you ever went to a concert then you did (potentially) pay the artist to produce her/his next album out of reach of the RIAA. Most bands make money only from concerts, record companies get most of the money of the recording sale.
You are right that talent and motivation creates great music and increases a fan base. But, Tom Waits never has and never will match the sales and popularity of the Spice Girls and they are talentless marketing creations while he is a brilliant musician/composer. This model will make a Spice Girl type of band impossible and allow talented musicians to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOYCOTT the RIAA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you stop liking the music , then just stop contributing. Its not a perfect model yet, but anything is better than giving the RIAA 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Rediculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Rediculous
The idea of funding an artist to write lyrics and music is outrageous. Yes, writing is a good that is of high value and can be sold. However, it is also something that does not cost anything. Production, on the other hand, is something that CAN cost the artist money. Although this differs from genre to genre. I.E., rap beats can cost big bucks as opposed to a singer/songwriter who creates on their own (for free...assuming they don't sell it to another artist). It's hard to apply this new "model" to all genre's as you can see.
As for the "middleman", or record companies.... They get a terrible rap from everyone. Not all companies are oppressing corporations. Indie labels have produced some stellar artists that have grown their fan base to huge numbers. All the while, producing albums with much less funding than their big brother's.
Make good music and the rest will follow. Sell me a CD full of crap with one or two good songs and, yeah, I'll pick it apart on itunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: Rediculous
Then you completely do not understand the current business process for the development of an album...or of ANY type of (commercial) artistic work.
Unlike, say a painter, most artists like recording musicians and book authors are paid AHEAD OF TIME for their work. Often this payment is in the form of a loan to be paid off by the sale of the work after the fact.
But make no mistake, most (commercial) artists are paid in order to produce the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: Rediculous
Yes, funding an artists creates a commercial environment. Funding from fans or labels- it's all leading to the same old model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Rediculous
No, not the same old model. The change is such that the artist is directly dealing with their customer base instead of a middle man.
In fact, I believe that this "new" approach will lead more towards the greatest music comes from the heart argument you used in a previous thread. Instead of having the pressure to put out a "huge seller", the artist is focused on "pleasing my customers".
With the current approach, the artist is out to sell a product, regardless of who the purchasers are. They have a huge debt facing them and they need to sell, sell, sell. The artist has to appease the record label, whose only concern is raking in big returns.
With this new approach, the artist is out to make a product that their fans want. The only thing the artist needs to do to appease their backers is to be themselves and produce their own stuff...because that is what the customer has (pre-)paid for.
Yes, there is a chance that the output would be not inline with what you were hoping for. You may find yourself disappointed. But there certainly have been albums I've bought in the past where I liked it in the store but quickly grew tired of it, so there is no direct protection there either.
And by being involved in the process directly, the artist can allow their fans/financial backers a chance to provide feedback prior to the final product. Pre-releases, closed sessions, wiki-brainstorming, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
something missing?
But in all of these cases, the artist is still very much depending on selling rather than giving away the final product, because he or she is getting paid nothing at all unless and until there is a stream of actual profits.
Yes, the artist can presumably go out and earn tour $$, and can potentially sell additional stuff to everyone who has responded to these sorts of offers. But that does not diminish the fact that the "new" model being touted here is really just a very simple variation on the old model that is constantly under attack here as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What happens when......
Maybe instead, the band could offer a monthly subscription. Pay $5/mth and the subscribers get access to early releases, posters, signed photos, chance for backstage passes or even to sit in on recording sessions, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars_Forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can only charge for future time
The record industry model, where they try to squeeze as much money as possible out of things produced in the past, is lunacy. Once a thing has been created, and it is easy to copy, then it will be and should be copied to increase its utility. DRM, RIAA, etc, etc will always lose because they are trying to fight against a wonderful reality where recorded things can be copied easily.
How do musicians make a living then? They charge for their future time, which is all they have to offer because time in the past has already gone and has zero bargaining power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]