Josh Freese's $250 Option Sells Out In Less Than 48 Hours
from the not-bad dept
Last month, we wrote about how Josh Freese was using rather hilarious tiers to sell his latest album. In my keynote at the Leadership Music Digital Summit earlier this week, I used Freese as an example of a less well known artist doing something similar (and yes, we're working to get the video of the keynote online, but it may take a little while). Now Ian Rogers from Topspin alerts us to the fact that Josh's $250 tier has sold out in less than 48 hours (there were a total of 25 available). At that tier you got a signed CD/DVD (and the music as a download), a t-shirt, a signed drumhead and drumstick and lunch with Josh at PF Changs or The Cheesecake Factory (he's apparently a big fan). That's a gross of $6,250 for just that option alone. That's no $750,000, but it's a pretty damn good start for a musician that is a lot less well known. Looks like Josh is going to become pretty well known at the local PF Changs... and I'm sure some folks will still claim that these models can't work for less well known musicians.
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: business models, josh freese, music, tiers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
perhaps he has a big family? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although it does invite interesting theories regarding who the buyers were...I can see Flight of the Conchords selling all 25 slots to Mel, followed by the most awkward dinner of all time at a nearly empty table at PF Chang's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the ones that buy the higher tiers that he has to put out for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a very skewed view of the world. Why do you constantly believe economic fundamentals, driven by demand-based market ideology can't possibly create value and subsequently wealth? Not everyone believes in supply side and Arthur Laffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The way that some artists choose get around this annoying amount of shoplifting is to overcharge the crap out of their real fans, so that the freeloaders can enjoy the product anyway. In this case, he might as well say "$250 to have dinner with me, and here is your free CD" because it comes to the same thing.
It's the real key here: We get into long winded discussions of the difference between price and value - but when both of them are zero, it is pretty much unimportant which one you are talking about. We are falsely being told that the extras make it worth buying the CD - the reality is that the extras, offered correctly, would likely sell at the same price (if not more).
The market has "spoken", and music is now worthless - price or value. So the rest is just magicians flash paper trying to make it look like it is worth something when it no longer is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Blatantly false.
That's why people paid Radiohead millions for downloads people could have for free. It's why Ghosts I-IV was the top selling download album of the year on Amazon despite being legally available for free on every file sharing network. It's why Corey Smith still made about 10% of his revenue last year from digital music sales despite the music being given away on his site totally free.
The way that some artists choose get around this annoying amount of shoplifting is to overcharge the crap out of their real fans, so that the freeloaders can enjoy the product anyway. In this case, he might as well say "$250 to have dinner with me, and here is your free CD" because it comes to the same thing.
If they were overcharging, no one would buy. The fact that it sold out in less than 48 hours certainly suggests that the opposite of what you claim is true: if anything, it looks like he underpriced it.
It's the real key here: We get into long winded discussions of the difference between price and value - but when both of them are zero, it is pretty much unimportant which one you are talking about.
WH, your inability to understand the difference between the two is no excuse for you to keep repeating falsehoods. The price may be zero, but the value is much greater than zero. If the value were zero, who would want to have dinner with him? It's the music that makes all those other things valuable.
Air is valuable to you. But you don't pay for it. By your own definition, air then has no value? Do you realize how dumb that makes you sound?
The market has "spoken", and music is now worthless - price or value. So the rest is just magicians flash paper trying to make it look like it is worth something when it no longer is.
Nope. The market has spoken quite clearly: music has TREMENDOUS value, and if utilized properly in a business model, you can earn a ton of money off of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
60% of the people who downloaded Radiohead's album paid nothing. After that, the biggest pay slice was people paying under $4. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1573637/20071106/radiohead.jhtml
Radiohead made more money this way, perhaps up front. But they still had to put the album out for worldwide distribution on shiny plastic discs.
your inability to understand the difference between the two is no excuse for you to keep repeating falsehoods
Ahh, value and price. I have come to realize that this is where I stand in awe of your ability to use smoke and mirrors to create your stand, the concept that makes you an in demand speaker. I realize that it is because deep down in side, you really believe it. In order to keep this discussion simple, I will quote from wikipedia. It isn't the best text on the subject, but it would take too long otherwise:
"Value is linked to Price through the mechanism of exchange. When an economist observes an exchange, two important value functions are revealed: those of the buyer and seller. Just as the buyer reveals what he is willing to pay for a certain amount of a good, so too does the seller reveal what it costs him to give up the good."
So we are stuck. Price and value ARE linked. Darn those economists!
I understand your concept, which is to use free music as a sort of loss leader, a teaser, an advertisement to sell something else. The only way you can do that is by bringing the price that the vast majority of people will down to nothing. You want to give it all away with the hope that the consequences of this giveaway are increases in sales somewhere else.
The problem comes when everyone gives away the "valuable" music for nothing. Already it is common to find people with 1000 or more tracks in their ipods or music players. These people have already tuned out radio, the no longer want their MTV, and they have less and less connection to new music. New music has not only lost it's market price, but it has also lost it's value, in part because with the price effectively at zero, the value is rapidly approaching the same.
The only value you are seeing in music is it's ability to sell other things, to get people to pay attention - to want to see the artist live, to buy a t-shirt, to actually spend money on something that has actual value (those things that they feel worth trading their hard earned dollars for). But with an infinite supply of free music, and an infinite number of ways to get it, the chance of reaching critical mass on any one band or one type of music in the future is also infinitely small.
Radiohead, NIN, etc are all great examples of how well known bands can get through the noise level, and how their music still has both a market value (some people will pay for it) and intrinsic value (people want the music enough to go find it). But they are rare exceptions, entirely propped up by the very machines you want to tear down and toss out: copyright, licensing, record labels, distribution, and those horrible "shiny plastic discs".
I could go on. I understand where you are going, but I think you haven't thought the process to the end. Infinite distribution + limited artist rights + get rid of the middle men means a near infinite amount of music in that infinite distribution system. If you cannot see how that removes value from the music, well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we are stuck. Price and value ARE linked. Darn those economists!
Price and Value are linked, yes; no one will argue that. But they aren't the same thing. A horse and carriage can be linked together, and pulling one brings the other along with it, but that doesn't mean that the horse is the carriage.
From a mathematical standpoint, the length of a box and that box's volume are linked, but length isn't volume. You can shorted the box without losing volume (if you also widen the box), or you can have a 'box' with a 12ft length and no volume (because it's width is zero).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dresdner Bank crisis
The top-flight managers Dresdner Bank earned 2008 despite billion-losses far more than every other bank executive committee in Germany. According to business report of the institute belonging meanwhile to the Commerzbank the occasional nine executive committees took well 58 million euros and thus more than twice as much as in the previous year. Largest post were not compensations of more than 24 million euro of the Dresden executive committees after the integration of the institute into the Commerzbank is further-employed.
To the comparison: The executive committees of the Commerzbank earned last year 4.3 million euro, those the German bank 4.5 million euros. World-wide
a heated debate over bonus payments at bankers was inflamed, which are responsible for billion-losses (see also Boni controversy: AIG goes into covering). In the United States about a penalty tax one thinks, in order to bring back the funds with by the state supported institutes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently you are not familiar with the "drum" side of the music business where he achieved iconic status many years ago.
I understand he is releasing his second solo album at any time, and all I can hope is that on this one he does not have a photo of his dad standing in his "skivvies".
Obviously I am somewhat biased since my family has known his mom and dad for over 40 years and has known about Josh's talent ever since they told us about getting him his first set of drums.
BTW, his brother, Jason, is an equally talented musician...as well as an ordained minister. Quite a combination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Josh Freese (born December 25, 1972[1]) is an American session drummer and songwriter. He is a permanent member of A Perfect Circle, The Vandals, and Devo, and was the drummer for Nine Inch Nails from late 2005 until late 2008. Freese has appeared on close to 300 records."
Let's just say "less well known" is a very relative term. I wonder if Trent has been helping him out with marketing?
Mike must be getting some serious love from TR these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, he is not exactly Trent Reznor himself, and as Mike continues to point out examples of business models working that do not rely on collecting a royalty for every song attained by consumers, the argument that musicians need all the copyright laws the RIAA is pushing becomes increasingly worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am going to have to write "harold's law", something about not using people who are getting rich from the system as role models of replacements of the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've yet to see you give a rational explanation as to why having been successful in an older model somehow invalidates the new model. All that does is remove some of the element of risk from the new venture, and give a slight leg up in marketing the new model. It doesn't protect it from failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to assume (perhaps I misread your views) that the two "models" are mutually exclusive. I believe it would be more accurate to say that they co-exist, and each is very useful depending upon the associated circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't say unknown. I said less well known. I think that's pretty clearly true. Even Freese himself pointed it out in a recent interview -- that among most people he's a relative unknown.
In my presentation, however, I used him as an example of someone *just slightly* less well known than Reznor and then pointed out that some people wills till complain that he's well known enough.
So I worked my way down after him, I talked about someone less well known.
Then someone even less well known.
Then someone even less well known.
By the end the point is shown that it does work for folks from the top to the bottom of the food chain -- even if some folks would like to pretend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is not based upon a free model, and is being promoted by a label known as Outerscope Records (source: Tower Records website).
Apparently Josh feels quite comfortable using a variant of the "buggy whip" model constantly decried here as outdated and doomed to eventual failure.
BTW, besides founding or touring as a member or many well known bands, he is also heavily involved as a session muscician for a numerous list of very well known performers, including by way of trivial examples, Jewel (for whom his brother performed her marriage ceremony), Clarkson, Perfect Circle, Devo, and Sting. Interestingly, before Sting started preparing for a tour a couple of years ago he asked his entourage for the best drummer around, and Josh's name was at the top of the list. Sting flew him and his family to France, was impressed, and asked him on the spot to join the tour.
The point being made, besides the fact I have know him since infancy, is that copyright does in fact figure in to the "business plan" for his new album. Free does not really suit the album because the music is not something readily susceptible to touring. Longstanding industry practices appear to be better suited to the situation. Given, however, his noteriety, I rather doubt one will ever see lawsuits against P2P "thieves", so perhaps this album is a better situation for you to follow to try and ascertain if the "pros" you associate with P2P outweigh the "cons". This would be an interesting case study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What I do see is that the response to Josh's tongue in cheek offer lends proof to the idea that the non infinite goods can be sold for much more than the infinite goods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently Josh feels quite comfortable using a variant of the "buggy whip" model constantly decried here as outdated and doomed to eventual failure.
Ah, but that's not true actually. The point is that he's also giving people a whole bunch of other reasons to buy. That was the point we've been making.
BTW, besides founding or touring as a member or many well known bands, he is also heavily involved as a session muscician for a numerous list of very well known performers, including by way of trivial examples, Jewel (for whom his brother performed her marriage ceremony), Clarkson, Perfect Circle, Devo, and Sting.
Again, I pointed all that out in my presentation, even naming many of those bands.
The point being made, besides the fact I have know him since infancy, is that copyright does in fact figure in to the "business plan" for his new album. Free does not really suit the album because the music is not something readily susceptible to touring.
Uh... not quite. The point is that there are all those other options out there that don't rely on the music itself. His music IS free whether he likes it or not. It's available on various file sharing sites already. No, it's not legal, but it is free. The point is that he's created a business model of offering something *MORE* than just the music that he's selling.
Free does not really suit the album because the music is not something readily susceptible to touring
Huh? Who said anything about touring? The whole point is that he laid out a variety of options to get people to pay for more that has nothing to do with touring. Exactly like we've said would happen. You don't need to be a touring musician to make this sort of thing work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less Well-Known
Mike wrote:
In other words, somebody in the middle? Somebody previously objected to your examples about musicians making it by saying yes, they may work for somebody already famous, or somebody just starting out, but what about those in the middle, not famous but not completely unknown either? Well, here’s an example of somebody in the middle making it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
Yes it's a relative term, we can all figure that out because the word 'less' is by definition a relative term.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but it's so fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But still:
Radiohead made more money this way
They are your own words. :)
Yes, you are right, price and value are linked. But they also aren't the same. :)
p.s. Would love to see this:
a near infinite amount of music
Have you ever been on What.CD? I love to just constantly look around there. Pick some random artist and download it. Enjoy it.
And yes, even without it being paid still a lot of music would be made. And I don't care, I have a lot better music there from people who don't get a dime than from artists that make millions. Yes, I also love going to concerts and own the amount of CD's I can afford and more Vinyls than any one I know.
I am 19 and I own more vinyl than my dad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, Radiohead individually made more - but overall, less economic activity was generate, less sales dollars were made, and so on. For them not so much of a problem (they are known) but the same thing for a lesser known band would mean maybe less money for promotion, less chance that people even know you to come get your record, maybe no record deal means not enough airplay anywhere to get attention, etc. Radiohead is a great example of the momentum created by years and years in a very well oiled record label / artist management system, not any great thing that they did.
Music is very close to becoming infinite, but mostly infinitely horrible. Imagine music as an endless American Idol audition reel. 20,000 applicants, 16 that even merit consideration. The signal to noise ratio is going to be screwed for a long time to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. When we talk about 'value' we mean "the benefit that a person gets from the product." Music has value because there's a real or percieved benefit that people get from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like digital distribution because it's free & easy to experiment. It has value because it has no cost.
I don't know how much money you spent on music in your youth? But currently we easily spent hundreds a year on music alone, Imagen if we grow older?
Imagine music as an endless American Idol
I don't watch American Idol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesser known band earlier never did get attention. The signal to noise ratio has always been screwed, distribution has been screwed.
Remember I don't like American Idol, They are shit, just to bind some shitty artist in a shitty music contract. All my music is music you probably never heard of or just really old. Music my dad think is old, Music he liked and music that is now current.
I listen underground, I listen old rock artist and I listen Mozart. How ever would Guns 'n' Roses ever be shared?
Check the sales on Guns 'n' Roses t-shirts, they aren't bought by my dad, but the 14-15yo kids I see on the street.
Where did they discover it?
Somebody has just sent it to them over a instant messenger client.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We may in fact be entering the era of the small timers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is exactly why I think the industry needs to be reborn/recreated, because it seems to be no longer there to support artists, instead it is trying to create 'artists' to support itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weird harold
so... how weird are you :P?
sometimes in a world full of love and hate
are penis fighting
sow they have also bleu eyes....
you have small penis and big penis and penis penis
and bleu penis and bloody red penis :P
and then you have youre penis
that one call
ienie weenie mini penis :P xD!!!!!
so... i go to sleep..
penis well bye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As you mature into adulthood you will likely find that your "music fund" is slowly, but inexorably, converted into your "taxes/insurance/mortgage/etc. fund".
But... but... People still spend money on entertainment right?
People will always want to spend money on entertainment, I can't afford dining at a restaurant at my age. Still I see older people do it, they have other priorities. Not missing the money.
They could always do so, they just don't want. In other situations these people also wouldn't have bought 'music entertainment' either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't the only place, far from it.
I just download random shit and I like that. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Math
- Dinner: $25 each=$50
- Drumhead: $20?
- TShirt: $10
- Lets pretend the CD & drumstick were free.
total cost: $80. $170 profit x 25 = $4,250 plus a months worth of meals at a chain restau.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Math
Looks like a great way to make money to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Math
But she decided she didn't want to tour and didn't want investors.
If an artist is hoping to do music as a career, I think you have to sit down and figure out what you are going to sell fans, how much you plan to sell, and how many shows you have to play to reach that many people. With CD sales no longer much of an option, you have to then calculate how much you can charge for a show and how many T-shirts you need to sell. Unfortunately there are few items that equal the margins that CDs used to provide. After you covered the initial cost of a CD, then you were looking at costs of about $1.50 per CD that you could then sell directly to a fan for $15.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
raimo1@hot.ee
Banken 40 Staaten
"Die Ära des Bankgeheimnisses ist vorbei", hatten die 20 führenden Wirtschaftsnationen bei ihrem Gipfel in London verkündet; Steueroasen und unkooperative Länder müssten mit Sanktionen rechnen.
Damit richtete sich die Aufmerksamkeit auf die sogenannte graue und schwarze Liste: Gemeint ist ein Fortschrittsbericht der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD). Dieser führt an, welche Länder den OECD-Richtlinien für die Besteuerung und den Informationsaustausch entsprechen und welche nicht.
Demnach hätten 40 Staaten die Steuerstandards schon umgesetzt. Auf der schwarzen Liste jener, die die Richtlinien nicht anerkennen, werden nur Costa Rica, Malaysien, die Philippinen und Uruguay geführt.
Österreich findet sich auf der grauen Liste wieder: Diese umfasst Staaten, die angekündigt haben, den internationalen Richtlinien entsprechen zu wollen, diese aber noch nicht umgesetzt haben. Dabei wird Österreich nicht als Steueroase ("tax haven") geführt, sondern unter "sonstige Finanzzentren" – mit Belgien, dem Sultanat Brunei, Chili
[ link to this | view in chronology ]