How The Record Labels Are Killing Innovative New Music Services: No Money, No Content
from the death-by-stupidity dept
A couple years ago, we discussed how Universal Music CEO Doug Morris gleefully explained how clueless he was about technology -- while also being quite ignorant of basic economics and business models. It's amazing that Vivedi has allowed him to remain in charge. One of the more stunning statements was that the idea that you had to give up some money now to make more in the future just means "someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of you." Apparently, the guy has never heard of investing and has no bank accounts that earn interest, because that's just "someone, somewhere... taking advantage."With that said, the following really isn't all that surprising. Gerd Leonhard highlights the explanation of why concert video site FabChannel shut down:
No money means no content. That is the way the labels (major and independent) look at potential partnerships with internet companies. Even when it is obvious a service provides added value in promotion and sales, the mantra stays the same: no money, no content. Even when a service invests substantial amounts of money in creating high quality concert footage and an award winning platform to show it to the world, the mantra stays the same: no money, no content.It's hard to think of anything more short-sighted or suicidal. Here are all sorts of online companies looking to help promote your works better so that you can make more money, and the you decide that unless they give money up front, they need to be shut down. And we've seen this over and over again. It's why every hot new music startup ends up getting sued by the record labels, with the end result being either the site gets shut down, or the startup gives a big equity chunk to the labels, in combination with promises of impossible-to-afford payments. The record labels with their "no money, no content" mantra have destroyed their own business. So many services that could have helped better promote musicians killed off because of this silly and suicidal mantra. It makes you wonder how the management at those record labels keep their jobs. Don't they have boards and parent companies who monitor what's happening?
When you look at it from a label point of view, it might even look logical. Their business models have been hammered the last ten years by decreasing CD sales. Their radio, TV and newspaper partners are not doing their promotional job as they used to. And last but not least: the majority of consumers are now downloading tracks for free. All bad things for companies that invest in recordings of artists.
So the most important feature that new partners have to have is: MONEY. Money to counter the decrease in CD sales. Promotion has turned into a dirty word. MTV for example got big and wealthy by showing video clips paid for by the labels. So now these labels think: We will not let that happen again. From now on everybody who wants to become a media partner online is going to have to pay up front to even start.
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: content, deals, music industry
Companies: fabchannel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not their fault. Any revenue lost is the work of pirates. Goodwill gone? Blame the ninjas. Accused of incompetence? Pesky vampires.
The ghosts of my ancestors weep! It's affecting productivity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it your belief that musicians should only be in the business of selling T Shirts? Of course, without trademark regulations, they couldn't sell those either.
I know, it will be based on the good hearts of the fans that will just donate money to the musician because they like their music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't Itunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, etc. make up some of that loss?
"Their radio, TV and newspaper partners are not doing their promotional job as they used to."
Because the music business wants to be paid to advertise instead of the usual other way round that happens everywhere else?
"And last but not least: the majority of consumers are now downloading tracks for free. All bad things for companies that invest in recordings of artists."
Am I really an exception anymore? I don't download music for free unless offered as such by the artist. All music I've downloaded in the past few years has been through Itunes or Amazon - I don't even know how to download through P2P (though I could readily learn, it's just not something I've wanted or felt necessary to do in my own little life thus far).
It's proprietary hardware/software issues that keep me from patronizing Itunes anymore. I don't download from Amazon that much either, because synching and clients and transferring and all that crap are a nuisance. I don't make use of so-called pirate sites either - I need yet ANOTHER method to learn? Nah.
I just don't buy.
Not bothering to use it's muscle and catalog to enforce or encourage or invent/back/demand device interoperability and standardized digital distribution platforms is the fatal mistake these nitwits made over a decade ago.
And for consumers, ever ignored anymore even though they're the ones that TELL YOU what they'll buy, well - you can't sell something you won't put up for sale.
Ten years they've had to capitalize on their copyrights, yet they wail that they're losing money.
How Not to Succeed with Your Copyrights. Long written by Big Content.
All Rights Reserved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No one ever advocated the complete removal of copyright, patents, or trademarks. Try to keep up.
Yes, artists can survive on people donating, just don't bet on it (hence the reason to buy part of CwF+RtB).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who watches the watchers?
OK, I'll bite...
Of course they do, but they're as blind to the changes in the market as the record labels are. The boards of directors and the parent companies are fed the same "no money, no content" line and, since it makes sense from their traditional perspective, they eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.
That line about "We will not let that happen again" in regards to MTV puts things in perspective for me. I can really see some record exec saying this. The problem of course is that they've learned the wrong lesson. It's not that MTV made a bunch of money by promoting your product. It's that you couldn't promote your product as well or that you couldn't figure out a way to make money in different ways given the changed market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Which post to comment on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, but don't tell that to the people who have depended on forcing little plastic disks on everyone.
"Because the music business wants to be paid to advertise instead of the usual other way round that happens everywhere else?"
That and thanks to the Internet, fewer and fewer people pay attention to them.
"Am I really an exception anymore?"
Wasn't it like 70% of people admit to downloading unauthorized music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Honesty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If the feel, atmosphere and experience of your concert can be exactly replicated via an online video, you're doing it wrong. If seeing footage of a good concert doesn't make you want to be there, you're probably not going to be persuaded to go there by other marketing anyway..
"Is it your belief that musicians should only be in the business of selling T Shirts? "
Is it your belief that the only possible tangible item a musician can possibly sell is a T-shirt? If so, your lack of imagination is more of a barrier to your profit than anything else.
"I know, it will be based on the good hearts of the fans that will just donate money to the musician because they like their music."
If you need to beg to your fans to make any money, you have many problems and I feel sorry for you.
Of course, if you're actually posting this from the POV of an actual musician and not just as a "concerned 3rd party", then you've already lost at least 2 marketing opportunities by posting anonymously. I'll let you figure out for yourself what those are...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"We have get rid of those player pianos! No one will want to see a person playing the piano any more if they're around!"
"We have to get rid of video tape! No one will want to go to the movie theatres if they can watch a movie at home!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
there. Finally came up with a good quote for that one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: (You still havent learned to use the subject field?)
Are you really saying that going to a concert and watching a video of a concert are equivalent? Have you ever been to a concert?
Is it your belief that musicians should only be in the business of selling T Shirts? Of course, without trademark regulations, they couldn't sell those either.
I know, it will be based on the good hearts of the fans that will just donate money to the musician because they like their music.
You have obviously not been paying attention. Have you not noticed the many examples that have been mentioned here showing the many ways artists can make money, aside from selling t-shirts or little plastic discs?
AC, You really have problems with reading comprehension. I'd say you were retarded, except I've met a number of developmentally disabled people who can grasp concepts much better than you seem to be able to.
Also, learn to use the subject field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First, where is this citation.
Second, while I abhore the RIAA/MPAA's buisness practices in many respects, this doesn't (to me) justify file sharing. I think the point missing in that argument is this:
Yes, a majority of consumers probably have DOWLOADED a single track, or tracks. There is a huge differenece between this, and DOWNLOADING files. I haven't seen any survey or anything that supports the contention that the majority of consumers are actively downloading music files meant for purchase for free. I am willing to concede based on evidence, but have seen none. This seems like a major straw-man portion of this debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Those, if someone invents a way to recreate the exact sensory experience without being there, I admit musicians are going to be in a tough spot. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.fabchannel.com/
If these people are meant to help upcoming artists then, chances are, many of these upcoming artists aren't signed. So they shouldn't have to pay collection agencies for unsigned artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Any musician who cannot utilize such amazing technology deserves to go to the poor house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because the Artists and Venues are prohibited by their contracts with the labels from giving permission. Due to their contracts, only the labels have the right to give permission, and the labels are saying "no money, no content". So FabChannel cannot distribute content that they have permission to distribute because the labels are not giving them permission, even though the labels recognize the promotional and marketing value of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This "all criminal, all the time" sounds an awful lot like that rap music.
In the future, music will all be about licenses!
Licenses, licenses, licenses!
Doesn't that sound musically exciting?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I dunno, was it? I vaguely recall a query of teens in the UK...but the specifics are lost to faulty memory. If it was ALL people, I'd have to wonder if the question was: Have you ever downloaded unauthorized music?, would they all have any idea what that even means?
I took issue with the 'majority' statement. I imagine Itunes, etc. would be defunct if that were true. Not that it isn't happening on a large scale, but it gives the impression that hardly anyone's using those services when that's certainly not the case.
A 'majority' could be availing themselves of both methods, I ruminate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know, t-shirts should be free, because if enough people wear them, they are a very good advertisement for the music and the videos of the concerts that are also free. Wait, there is no money here, just good feelings and advertising.
In the end, video channels, radio stations, and for that matter people pushing illegal downloads need to understand that not everyone WANTS your advertising. Stop deciding that people need your service. If they want it, they will come to you. Otherwise, pay for the product you want to make money off of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Do most venues sign contracts with labels?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You once again completely miss the point (you are really good at doing that). No-one is saying that everything is advertising. What is being said is that the things that are infinitely copyable for zero marginal cost can be used to promote and increase the sales of the scarce goods (Concerts, public appearances, physical goods etc.).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Since they focus on up and coming artists then it would suggest that many of those artists they focus on aren't signed and so have no such contract. Regarding venues, why don't they just focus on venues that don't have contracts with record labels? Also, if a venue does have a contract it should have no bearing on an unsigned artist, it should be illegal for it to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So what's wrong with giving away, as a musician, a photograph of your face with your name scrawled over it? So fans can upload that image onto their clothing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes they do. The labels control public performance rights, so the venue has to sign a contract with the label in order host a performance act. The exception would be artists that are not signed to a label, or signed artists that have retained performance rights(currently very rare). In those cases the venue signs a contract with the artist instead of the label.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I've heard this song before...
Q: What are they going to buy then?
A: ANYTHING you can convince them to buy...for some it will be T-shirts...others it will be access to the artist to ask them insightful questions like, "Which bathroom do you prefer doing #2 in?"...and for others it will be getting a thank you shout out in the artist's next cd...and on and on and on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You keeping hearing the song because the song remains the same: nobody is coming up with a valid and functional way to turn any of this into anything but more free stuff. The question keeps coming up because the answer isn't even good enough to make a grade school student happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Look what cool things happen when you have an open camera policy: http://bit.ly/24AtPJ (entirely fan-recorded/edited)"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and this is my point, fabchannel supposedly helps up and coming artists. It's hard to imagine that there aren't many unsigned up and coming artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You once again prove that you simply have not been paying attention. We give you example after example of ways in which the artists can make money. We give you example after example of artists that actually are making money while giving their music away. Yet you continue to make completely clueless statements such as this.
Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Both of your premises are incorrect. Fabchannel's focus is not only on up and coming artists, and many up and coming artists will (naively) sign with any label that makes them an offer in order to hopefully increase their exposure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That or his Day Job has a fuck of a lot of down time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, your answer is wrong because it makes incorrect assumptions about the nature of paid goods and basic economics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean, an .mp3. CD's are so '90s. 1990s that is. Last century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
With the tools freely available today, you can interact to your hearts content with your fans...find out what they'd be willing to buy...come on now, you can do it!
Hell, on this site alone, there are a lot of examples of how artists are connecting with their fans and doing to support themselves.
If they're not willing to buy ANYTHING...well, then, you have a problem. Forcing a price on something that people aren't willing to buy...well, good luck with that.
And remember having a day job has always been the reality for many artists...not everyone has a crib full of bling-bling and sits around all day bangin' shorties...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And for what? A few hours worth of entertainment. Hours spent not watching television or buying music or listening to it, for that matter.
And I make comments! For absolutely nothing. Next thing you know, we'll all be living on the streets. Doing nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right?
The artist won't have a next CD. They will just have music that someone put on the internet for free. They won't have more than one bathroom to do #2 in, so the answer will likely be "at mcdonalds, where I work for a living".
LOL
Unless their skill in merchandising is equal to, if not better than their skill in music, of course!
Think of how much MORE art we'll have when all the artists have to spend the majority of their time not making art but on mini-golf playdates and figuring out innovative new ancillary gimmicks to sell their real talent...oh wait
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re #49
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. You entirely miss the point. Some of it works right now because they are playing off the existing system, the system that is being eradicated. "Music sales" becomes a non-event when there isn't anyone selling music, you know?
What you are missing is that the current "successes" are limited to either people with so much money they can fail and look good (NIN, Radiohead), or to marginal players for whom making slightly more than working in a warehouse is good. They are all dependant on the current system, either it got them where they are, or is helping them to sell their stuff. So the entire marketplace is propped up by the exact things that Techdirt pushes so hard to remove.
So, the question is: Without using any of the current system, which will be gone soon anyway according to Mike, how would they actually get known and make money?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You almost caught the point. The one thing there is demand for is (ready?)....
MUSIC.
It's why the whole process is a losing battle because it's trying so hard to shove other things onto people using the one thing they want. The t-shirts and everything else should be a free incentive to buy the music, not the other way around.
An artist will write only so many songs in their life, they will record only so many albums. Those are things that are rare, revered. Trent Reznors ability to parrot his own songs in public is nice, but really, it's the creation of those new songs that is rare and unique. He released probably less than 20 songs this year, but did 100+ concerts. Which one is more rare? Which one is enjoyed every day, and which one is just a memory for a couple of million people?
Sell the people what they have the most demand for, not the least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
music is a dead business now why should I pay $20 for music you winging prick because its right? fuck that SONY ain't going to release it for a fair price so I ain't going to pay and yes I'm the consumer I will decide what's fair and if I don't like your pricing model I will copy it off a friend or a couple of friends if I'm torrenting you want me to pay for music fuck that I will sooner go without than subsidize some angsty white boys smack addiction if you want my cash then I want somthing with more value than intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you're saying is charge people $X for something they're willing to pay $0 for...guess what, you won't make any money that way.
2) The songs are not rare...you can find copies of them EVERYWHERE...there is only one copy of the experience of seeing the artist perform on a particular night...and a recorded version of the artist performing is not even close to the actual experience of being there.
Which would you have paid $75 for: A) a CD compilation of the songs performed at Live Aid (1985) or B) attending the event in either Wembley or JFK Stadium?
3) Sell the people what they're willing to buy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, that was literally dripping with post millennial generation entitlement and condescension. At least you had the honest decency to call yourself a "consumer" and not a "customer". And the problem is, you won't "sooner go without". If you don't want to pay (and who does?) you'll just find a way to get it without paying which is the antithesis of a functioning market. The textbook definition of freeloading. The textbook definition of parasitism. Wrap it in whatever kind of technological veil you want, you're still a fucking lamprey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The old "It only works for small and big artists, but not the ones in between" Argument. It's really such a flimsy argument I am quite surprised you would try to use it again.
An artist will write only so many songs in their life, they will record only so many albums. Those are things that are rare, revered. Trent Reznors ability to parrot his own songs in public is nice, but really, it's the creation of those new songs that is rare and unique. He released probably less than 20 songs this year, but did 100+ concerts. Which one is more rare? Which one is enjoyed every day, and which one is just a memory for a couple of million people?
You forgot the last and most important part of those questions: Which one have fans have shown willingness to pay between $30 and $100 for(sometimes even more)? Which one is something that people have shown a reluctance to pay even 99 cents each for? Which one is actually scarce vs infinitely copyable for nearly 0 marginal cost?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jobs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re: my comment:: "The future of music is all pirate, all criminal, all the time." I've come to this view through a number of reports like the original posting here (music industry charges too much for startups to survive), Michael Robertson's recents views on the survivability of music startups, and recent sketchy reports that venture capitalists are about done with music, after a decade of lawsuits and futility. In part because of the music publishers and in part because of the music labels, Big Music has no ability to get its act together and come up with a service with mass appeal. For the authorized sale of music, iTunes is going to be as good as it gets.
That's the problem on the authorized-supply side.
On the unauthorized-supply side, Big Music faces an unsolvable problem. The personal computer and the Internet offer an endless toolbox for copying and distributing files. That is what these tools are FOR. That is how these tools accomplish everything they DO.
Ten years in, and we're what, on the fourth generation of file sharing systems? If one system gets swatted down by the copyright interests, many people will just put something else together out of the toolbox of the Internet. It's not hard to do this: Shawn Fanning, when he created Napster, was not a super-genius.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh no! Big name acts go the way of the dinosaur and are replaced by smaller and more mammalian acts. Cultural evolution. Oh no!
We must stop this travesty!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You have the gall to call me entitled while insisting that an outdated broken business model should be allowed to rake obscene profits to subsidize the lifestyles of management and shareholders lifestyles there could be interchangeable with drug habits since there is a market in the US for cocain and you can be dammed sure it isn't McDonalds employees
You feel that some trust fund prick who has never worked a day in his life but the company he owns that exists for the sole purpose of turning his parents wads of money into more money for him is entitled to my cash because they invested money he never did earn into a company he has never heard of that produces a band he never listens to is entitled to my money...fuck that fuck him/her and fuck your market model if 70% of your customers have started stealing from you maybe your selling the wrong product if your trying to charge for digital content then your a tool if your trying to charge for a cultural "experience" then your a savage and have your head stuck if not in your arse then at least deeply entrenched in your wallet music is a cultural product and to try and regulate it is a fools quest music was part of culture long before intellectual property rights came about and some of the greatest earliest music mankind ever managed to bang out doesn't have any intellectual property rights attached to it musicians have always got by and always will with or without major producers digital content is virtually free to distribute and last I checked playing in pubs still pays well enough to live on. The only artists that stand to lose in this are major artists who have three mansions in Beverly hills a bulk purchase discount on Cocain and a helicopter to match each of their outfits tough they can afford to get the short end of the stick for a while, if your seriously saying that 70% of the public should quit stealing music and pay whatever the major labels ask you may as well tell the sun to pack that UV shit in and get the tides to quite going in and out.
In short leach or not I'm in the majority and moral or not your in the minority now capitalism doesn't come with a mommy they aren't being nice button the major labels aren't choirboys who need government protection and they certainly don't need yours fanboy. If they can't figure out a better method of keeping their customers than threats of lawsuits then they are up shit creek and belong there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I am struggling to understand what you say here, should I presume that you are trying to identify a distinction between downloading legally unambiguous files and downloading copyrighted files without permission? If so you could have worded it a bit clearer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
none of the evidence points to the majority of the public being pirates these surveys suggest that contrary to post 61 its more like 20% of net users if that
http://torrentfreak.com/one-in-three-is-a-music-pirate-090724/
http://torrentfreak.com/if pi-2-8m-file-sharers-break-the-law-daily-in-sweden-091012/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Artist mainly make $$ from their merch & shows. If they artists are smart enough they can record & release all their music on their own & collect the profits from it.
Artists today need to this two-sided....music & buisiness. Some are so involved in the music portion that they sell the one thing that makes them great.
If your on MTV you sold your soul...plain and simple. THE MUSIC YOU CREATE IS YOUR OWN, TAKE CONTROL OF IT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People just don't get it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This whole free music thing ignores a whole bunch of basic facts, like that much of the marketing goes to people who will never see a concert. How many U2 gigs in New Mexico? None, I think that is the correct answer. How many U2 albums sold in New Mexico? Probably more than 1.
So in answer to your question, seeing the concert would be great, but getting to enjoy the music every day for the rest of my life if I desire, well... ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remarkably, it's not flimsy. Once you start looking at it, those are the only two groups of musical acts who are finding any benefit. Either they are too rich to care, or too poor for it to matter.
You forgot the last and most important part of those questions: Which one have fans have shown willingness to pay between $30 and $100 for(sometimes even more)? Which one is something that people have shown a reluctance to pay even 99 cents each for? Which one is actually scarce vs infinitely copyable for nearly 0 marginal cost?
here again, the fallacies of the situation become clear. Without piracy, the vast majority of the fans would be more than willing to pay 99 cents. heck, millions of Americans each week BUY music. A very small subset of that number (no more than 100,000 in a typical week) might have seen NIN if they are in fact performing this week. Most importantly, the concert is only interesting because you like the music. If there is no music, there is no concert.
Connecting with fans who will never have the chance or never have the money to actually every buy anything is like giving out champagne samples to homeless people. It gets you a whole bunch of exposure, but does little to actually bring you business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
INFINITE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see how the old system, before the Internet, was any better at solving income inequality than what we have now. If anything the more level playing field allow for more middle class people to promote their music. Your argument is not only flimsy, it's something you made up without evidence. In fact, the too rich to care group is usually the group that comes from the record labels and the other group, the group that record labels often neglect to pay (as mike has shown) are the poor ones. It's an open communication medium that allows more moderate artists who otherwise not get paid by the record labels (or who would be underpaid) to get paid a decent wage without necessarily becoming too rich to care.
"Without piracy, the vast majority of the fans would be more than willing to pay 99 cents."
Without competition people will pay more. It doesn't mean that monopolies are good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But other fans would appreciate that you're giving away your music for free and they will pay you. People pay through donations for free software. Creativecommons.org and others have plenty of free music and such. So free music and such is sustainable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As has been shown, some do actually get known and make money using other business models. and what they make is at least more than what record labels pay many of their artists. For example, see
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060921/192446.shtml
and
http://www.techdirt.com/articles /20090909/0318406140.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If I remember correctly, it was 70% of people admit to using P2P file sharing programs. The problem is, not everyone who uses such programs are engaging in copyright violations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Remarkably, it's not flimsy."
Remarkably, you're a liar and it's the previous system, before the Internet, that encouraged income inequality.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060921/192446.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20090909/0318406140.shtml
The current success only levels the playing field for middle class musicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is that there are people who are willing to buy a CD. OK, that's wonderful, sell those people a CD. Do artists still sell CDs? Yes. I don't see the problem. In the example, you said you were more willing to spend $75 for a compilation of the music performed at Live Aid than going to the actual show. Again, wonderful, I will sell you a CD and not expect you at the show.
The question is, though, if folks are able to obtain the music on the CD in other ways (some of which do not include providing revenue to either the artist or entities who represent the artist) what does the artist sell to those people in order to make money? Ancillary questions include: What function does the CD play for the artist? What function does the CD play for other music industry actors (i.e., the recording industry, retail outlets, record labels, etc.)?
When I put my academic hat on, I tend to enjoy thinking about those ancillary questions - they're soft and fuzzy and lend themselves to waxing philosophically about these matters. However, the focus in this thread (and many of the discussions on this site) is the real-life, innovative strategies artists, entrepreneurial service providers, and others are coming up with to make money in the current environment where folks are able to obtain music in ways that preclude traditional forms of revenue.
The strategy that's championed here is selling people what they're willing to buy. I think it frustrates people because it sounds so simple, but in practice, it isn't. Figuring out what people are willing to buy isn't always simple. What it entails is having a finger on the pulse of the people you're trying to sell to; it means you have to interact with them on a level that wasn't necessary (or even practical) in the past.
Is this the only strategy that is available? No. In fact, many in the music industry are adamant against using this strategy, and instead, rely on a strategy of changing the legal framework of the market so that they can maintain revenue streams from a time when the distribution of music was more or less controlled by the record labels.
If you're new here, you'll quickly realize that the discussions do not focus on whether free music is right or not or who's getting ripped off as a result of filesharing. Quite frankly, those quickly get labeled as whining and unimportant and get shouted down. The discussions here focus on how artists and entrepreneurial service providers can survive and thrive in a marketplace where the distribution of music is no longer under the control of record labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All of the great geniuses of 20th century music were such 'marginal players'. None of them, not a single god damn one of them, was able to make enough money off of record sales to make a living. They all had to do something other than compose full time to live: teach composition, teach Piano, conduct other people's music, perform other people's music, arrange music for the theater, or something.
This applies to most of the big names you will find in a history of twentieth century music: Bartok, Webern, Schoenberg, Ives, Messiaen, Partch, Nancarrow, Ligeti, Berg, Cowell, Satie, Boulez, Barraque....
The only one who came close to composing full time was Stravinsky, who had to depend on the private patronage of the very wealthy to survive. Needless to say, 'the industry' had nothing to do with arranging this patronage. Because, as a creator of 'that weird modern music' stuff, he would never move enough units to make a profit.
And we are supposed to get all weepy because the careers of people like Beyonce and Barbara Streisand are suffering from file sharing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We are in agreement...you're more likely to go to a concert when you already like the music. So, expose people to your music, sell them a ticket to your concert...and then sell them other stuff at the concert too. Talk to them, listen to what their interested in (i.e., what they would be willing to buy), then act on that knowledge. According to you, even with piracy, people are willing to buy CDs...great, sell them CDs...for those that are unwilling to buy your CD, sell them something else...anything else...hell, sell them peanut butter sandwiches molded in the shape of your bands ultra-swank logo...
Again - not sure how we're in disagreement. You need to have something to sell to people so they can buy it. One of the most important qualities of that something is that it's something they're willing to buy.
And...if the people have no money, then how would they buy anything? I'm not sure how that's even part of the equation. However, the interesting thing is you can still cheaply market to them since a copy of your music costs nothing for you to make available to them. This works great if you're marketing to kids (even though they really do have money - but it's not completely up to them how it gets spent) with the idea that someday they might have money of their own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's the question between people who might have a few dollars (say $10) extra in their life, and those who might have $300 extra. As more and more of the income from music is shoved over to concerts, the price of those tickets has gone up incredibly quickly, making a $200-$500 ticket not unusual. Most "fans" aren't in a position to shell out that type of money for a concert ticket. Yet, at $10 a CD, I suspect that plenty more people are willing to buy the pre-recorded music than can ever see the show.
Since the show can't be everywhere all the time, and since there are a limited number of show seats, and those show seats are often too far away from someone to get them to spend any money, it creates a situation where the costs of marketing are inflated because too much time and effort is spent on entertaining people who are not buying.
According to you, even with piracy, people are willing to buy CDs...great, sell them CDs
Again, you have to think past the present day situation. It is likely that the sales of CDs could stop altogether at some point, or like vinyl records, move towards being a novelty for collectors. If you remove the market (music is free!), then there is nothing left to sell. You cannot have it both ways. Widespread, wide open, unrestricted free music would eliminate the CD market entirely. The only thing keeping this from happening right now is the legalities that have made it hard to package free music online in a format that everyone can use. Remove those restrictions, and the CD market disappears overnight.
So now, what exactly do you sell them? There is no concert coming to their area. They have enough t-shirts. The walls are already covered in home made posters (they got pictures off the net and had them printed).
Answer: Nothing.
If you are going to support something, please consider the implications to the end of the road, not just what you see today. Too much of this free stuff is dependant on the current non-free market to support it. Remove the crutch, what's left?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
C'mon now.
You really make yourself a lot less credible when you say stuff like that. It automatically makes the rest of your arguments much weaker because it makes you look quite ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep asking the question, what do you sell to them? The answer is whatever they are willing to buy. I'm not sure how many times that can be repeated...sell them whatever they are willing to buy. Repeat...sell them whatever they are willing to buy.
Figuring that out is, as mentioned above, not always easy, but for any business venture, it is the seminal question. This blog shows examples of what other artists and service providers have come up with as an answer to your question. I don't know the parameters of your specific issue - but your first step should be figuring out what your fans want to buy - not what they want to have - what they are actually willing to buy (and at what price point). You will be hard pressed to sell something to people (no matter how much they want to have it) if they are unwilling to buy it.
And here's another clue - calling people who obtain your music without paying for a cd "fans" as opposed to the "real" fans who pay for a cd is probably not the best place to start. See, for example, Lars Ulrich as an example of how that can affect a band's relationship with fans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fabchannel is not dead. It lives in Central Musical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good News
No money, no content?....HA. For anyone looking to license indie music content, I write and produce it myself...and I'm here at the end of this e-mail:
bbb@wheatus.com
much love,
brendan b brown
wehatus.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A New Kind of Label
My model is simple going forward� Find Artists that are more like business partners and stick to a specific genre that you know well. You don�t need to be a conglomerate to earn a great living and enjoy your life. Focus on your talents and promote the talents of those around you�..and free cross promotion is crucial�don�t let your ego�s get in the way of good business.
Josh Brett , Frunt Runnaz CEO
[ link to this | view in thread ]