Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space
from the keep-on-keeping-on dept
While we keep presenting details of CwF+RtB working for various musicians, big, medium and small, some have complained that there needs to be more data to demonstrate that these kinds of business models can work. So, here we go. I briefly got to meet Shamal Ranasinghe from Topspin at Midem, but unfortunately wasn't able to go to his presentation. Thankfully, he's posted his slides along with some data from Topspin's own artists, who are making these business models work:Digging into some of the details, Topspin found that while many people do pay for digital downloads, the big chunk of revenue actually comes from physical scarce goods:
I won't go through all the slides, but Shamal also spends a fair amount of time talking about converting fans into buyers, and (no surprise) suggests that it helps to have a real connection with the fans, as opposed to just putting stuff out and expecting people to just show up and buy. You can't give it away and pray, but have to provide a real connection and real scarcities. But part of making that work is getting widespread distribution (Topspin uses a music playing widget) that helps bring people to the purchasing options, if they like the music. Rather than trying to hold back and hoard access to the music, sharing freely, and connecting it to reasons to buy helps bring in a lot of fans who are happy and willing to buy.
He also highlighted two case studies of amazing conversion rates. The David Byrne and Brian Eno album widget (the very first launched on Topspin) had a stunning 20% conversion rate of plays to purchases. Yes, one in five people who listened to the widget then purchased in the first few weeks of the campaign. That's an astounding rate -- and one I doubt many other bands would see, or sustain -- but still an amazing data point. In their case, since the average transaction price was over $15, it meant that every play was worth about $3 in sales. And yet some still don't believe that music online has promotional value that can lead to sales?
The second case study was with Fanfarlo, who sought to build up its email list -- and found that for every 1,000 plays of the widget, 49 fans either purchased or signed up for the email list. The presentation compares that to paid advertising, which found that per 1,000 impressions, they ended up with 0.7 new email users. Once again: the music is a great promotional tool, much better than traditional advertising in actually driving a conversion.
And, taking it one step further, to highlight the massive power of word of mouth, Topspin found that (again with Fanfarlo), the "Shares to Sales" ratio was 1.1. Yes, this meant that for every one person who shared the musical widget, more than one person ended up buying something -- though, admittedly, this number was likely skewed greatly by a $1 promo offer that ran for three weeks. But, either way, it shows that if you offer something that people want, at a good price, and you let people share (rather than punish them for sharing), great things can happen.
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, data, direct to fan, success stories
Companies: topspin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There will be no RtB, which means Mike's not invited, but there will be free hats and T-Shirts for those who show up.
What's a good month for y'all? I was thinking Bullfrog Marina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read this, and all I could think of was the number of people who just don't buy at all. When your average is high, it is likely that you cut off much of the low end business.
It seems to run like I always say: Rather than collecting a few dollars from each fan because they want your music, you collect 10 times as much money from one out of ten fans who is stupid enough to pay over the value for it. The 10th guy is basically paying the free ride for the other 9. When the 10th guy figured it out, he too will stop paying, and then nobody is paying for the ride anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You still obviously don't understand the difference between "value" and "price". "Value" is different from person to person. Your comments are value-less to me, yet to someone else they may hold value because they enjoy laughing at you.
Your one out of ten fans in your example obviously values the music more than the other nine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your one out of ten fans in your example obviously values the music more than the other nine.
nope, the other 9 love the music, they are just smart enough not to pay for it. They have already figured out that the value of the music is higher than what they are paying as the market price, which is zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A tree has natural value? Or wait... does it have scarce value? Natural scarcity?
A rock has mineral value and is a mineral scarcity.
I think it's all the same to TAM, all he keeps hearing in his head is "free bad!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You obviously don't.
WHOOOOSSHHHHH was what happened to you with the point of this story.
These artists and the label are setting prices. Everybody will place their own subjective value on what is being sold.
If Price > Value Then No Buy
If Price less-than Value Then Buy
It is incredibly simple.
It is also why the record labels are not selling their plastic discs anymore.
Their Price is higher than most people Value them at.
Value and Price are not the same thing.
Incredibly simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.
Try to think about it for awhile before claiming you understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Growing up in smalltown York, PA we had a small community of punk bands (and fans) that kept doing what it was doing because of catch phrases like "Support local talent." With the advent of distribution on the internet, you don't really need the 'local' part in there.
You get close enough insights into the music and the musicians, you get a better understanding of the process involved. I think it is extremely short-sighted to say that supporting artists you enjoy is stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you're an idiot if you buy the product and a thief if you don't. Great consumer options in the music marketplace...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone's "value" is at a different point. A strawberry farmer will pay absolute no money for a basket of strawberries because he already has plenty. For him, strawberries have no value.
For you, you may be willing to pay $5.00 for those strawberries. Your neighbour down the block may be willing to pay up to $10.00. That rich guy with plenty of money to throw around, he may not mind paying $20.00.
Each and every person has their own set value point for products. A smart business man will try to cater to all ranges in order to maximize profits. That's why marketplaces still barter and haggle - because it's all about maximize the sale.
The only reason the mass market has ignored this is because individual haggling is completely inefficient, so instead they choose a price point that maximizes (supposedly) the possible sales. Sure, 30% of your market may be willing to pay double what your price is, but the other 70% would be humming and hawing if you knocked the dollar amounts up.
That's what "RtB" is: Offering something at a wide range of price points to maximize sales. If 1 million people want free stuff, hey, here's some free stuff. If 10 thousand want to shell out $10, hey, here's a $10 offering. If 100 people want to pay $700 for a special edition package, then that's there for them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moreover, you're (again) confusing price and value. Is person 10 stupid because he thinks something has more value than the indicated price?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's the point - they value the work, but they aren't paying for work, they are paying for some other thing that has supposed value (miniputt game, t-shirt, whatever) and not paying a penny for the actual work.
The value is in the music (as is the cost) but nobody is suppose to sell music anymore. They have to sell what most people don't value or don't want (stuff) in order to give the thing of true value to 10 out 10 fans (music) away for free.
You end up with 9 freeloaders and one guy paying for the rest of them to ride the bus.
person 10? he has no idea of the real value, and if he takes a moment to think, he will realize he is supporting 9 freeloaders. Then the value in his mind of the "scarce" thing goes down. At this point, there are enough 10th people to make this work, but like any shell game, sooner or later the marks get tired of being marks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They have to sell what most people don't value or don't want (stuff) in order to give the thing of true value to 10 out 10 fans (music) away for free.
Right there you show your complete ignorance. It's not about selling things that people don't want. That obviously would not work. It's about finding things that the fans do want and will pay for. It's difficult to set a price on music because because the marginal cost is $0. Due to this awesome fact of $0 marginal cost, you can use it to sell something (that people want) that has a non-zero marginal cost, and the music adds value to that.
Your talk of "freeloaders" shows how you miss the point. You may call them "freeloaders", but a more appropriate term is "fans". If you connect with fans (CwF), they will gladly give you their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what you are missing. Most of them don't give anything. Remember the the Radiohead thing? Average was about 5 pounds paid, but more than half paid nothing. Half of the people were just freeloaders.
Calling them fans is like calling mugging "wealth redistribution". It's a glass half full view of people who took something for nothing, and have no intention of paying for anything else either.
When the people who are paying start to understand that most people got it for nothing, they will stop paying..
Due to this awesome fact of $0 marginal cost, you can use it to sell something (that people want) that has a non-zero marginal cost, and the music adds value to that.
Alas, marginal cost isn't the only part of the per unit cost for music. Jill Sobule's $75,000 record would need to sell 7500 copies at $10 each to break even. The marginal cost may be zero, but the actual cost per until (for 7500) is $10. You are making the marginal mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what you are missing. Most of them don't give anything. Remember the the Radiohead thing? Average was about 5 pounds paid, but more than half paid nothing. Half of the people were just freeloaders.
Yeah, but how many more downloads did they get compared to if they had been charging $10 each? They had over 1.2 million downloads of that album. It's hard to predict, but it's safe to say would have sold less if they were charging $10 each. But they also got alot more this way, because if they had done the traditional approach of putting the album out through a label, they would have likely only received around 25 cents per album.
Calling them fans is like calling mugging "wealth redistribution". It's a glass half full view of people who took something for nothing, and have no intention of paying for anything else either.
You make quite a leap there. What leads you to believe that they have no intention of paying for anything ever? I have seen many people who download music for free still fork out cash for concert tickets and band merchandise. Even if they don't buy anything, they still help spread the music to people who will pay.
When the people who are paying start to understand that most people got it for nothing, they will stop paying.
Wrong again. When you offer something that they want and are willing to pay for, they will pay. The trick is let the people who want it for free have it, but give the ones who do pay something extra that they want.
Alas, marginal cost isn't the only part of the per unit cost for music. Jill Sobule's $75,000 record would need to sell 7500 copies at $10 each to break even. The marginal cost may be zero, but the actual cost per until (for 7500) is $10. You are making the marginal mistake.
7500 copies? Why would you choose such an arbitrarily low number? You must be aware that selling only 7500 copies of any album would make that album an unrivaled failure. It's quite obvious that you chose that number out of the air simply to match the end number you were going for.
So since you are just pulling number out of the air then showing how much per unit that costs I can do the same:
75,000 copies = $1 per copy
100,000 copies = 75 cents per copy
300,000 copies = 25 cents per copy
1 million copies (platinum) = 7.5 cents per copy
See how the fact that you have 0 marginal costs encourages you to distribute it to as many people as possible? You don't have to get $10 an album if you get it to 1 million people. And if that many people are hearing your music then plenty of people will buy whatever else you are selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. Your economic ignorance is astounding -- especially since multiple people have tried to explain this to you.
What you call "actual cost" is "average cost" as anyone with even the tiniest understanding of economics can tell you, average cost does not factor into pricing. You can try to price that way, but it's a recipe for failure. Which, as we now know, is basically the story of your career -- so perhaps that explains a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you suggest that Ms Sobule recoup the costs of producing her album? She was luck in this case to essentially get donations, but what if she had borrowed the $75,000 from the bank? Would you want her to sell her music for pennies, even though she would never have a hope of recouping her costs?
Oh, wait, I forgot. You want her to sell miniputt games so she can finance her records, so that she can give them away for free.
Right, got it.
Real life explains why Itunes songs are more than a dollar instead of just a few pennies. The cost of making the music, of recording it, of turning it into a product, the artist time to write it, arrange it... it is amazing all those non-marginal costs that have to be recouped somewhere along the line. It's the marginal error, thinking that pricing is only based on marginal costs. Without the ability to recoup all those up front costs at some point, there is no product.
Can you explain otherwise? Very seriously, without mentioning t-shirts or other "scarcities", how would you do this in a normal business? I would love to hear your answer.
For the rest of your post, well, all I can say is that what you pretend to know about me is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really are a stunningly ignorant person sometimes. We are explaining how real life works, not the classroom.
How do you suggest that Ms Sobule recoup the costs of producing her album? She was luck in this case to essentially get donations, but what if she had borrowed the $75,000 from the bank? Would you want her to sell her music for pennies, even though she would never have a hope of recouping her costs?
Ok, since you seem to have trouble grasping this: she should sell whatever she CAN to recoup the cost. We're not saying that she shouldn't sell music, just that it's a BAD BUSINESS MODEL because of the economics.
This is the part that you seem to continually fail to grasp. We're just explaining WHY the market says if you price something wrong, people won't buy.
You can try to sell at whatever price you want, but if you fail econ, then you'll price badly and won't do well.
Oh, wait, I forgot. You want her to sell miniputt games so she can finance her records, so that she can give them away for free.
I said no such thing.
Right, got it.
Nope. Failed again.
Real life explains why Itunes songs are more than a dollar instead of just a few pennies. The cost of making the music, of recording it, of turning it into a product, the artist time to write it, arrange it...
Nope. iTunes has been able to charge that much because people are paying for convenience. It has nothing to do with the fixed costs.
it is amazing all those non-marginal costs that have to be recouped somewhere along the line
No, not amazing. If you hadn't failed econ, you would know that. Of course you have to recoup the non-marginal costs. But you DO THAT by OFFERING SOMETHING SCARCE. That's the only way that you can charge above marginal cost.
I mean, come on, seriously. It's stunning how badly you fail econ.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along, and you repeat it back to me as if it proves you right and me wrong?!?
Yikes. You're amazing.
Econ lesson time:
1. In a competitive market (i.e., one where the product is NOT SCARCE) price gets forced to marginal cost.
2. In a non-competitive market (i.e., one where product IS SCARCE) you can price above marginal cost.
3. Average cost does not factor into pricing, but DOES factor into the go/no-go decision.
4. So any business model has to be about focusing on building up SCARCE goods, such that you can make enough profit to surpass the average cost, but with knowledge that the pricing on NON-SCARCE goods will be pushed to the marginal cost.
You are saying the same thing, even if you think you're disagreeing with me.
For the rest of your post, well, all I can say is that what you pretend to know about me is wrong.
I've seen enough proof to know otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, come on, seriously. It's stunning how badly you fail econ.
it's why I can disagree with you for a long time Mike. You didn't answer the question in econ terms, you answered it in Mike terms. It is how you see things working in the future, not how the real world works.
You make the basic assumption that something is not scarce, yet it almost always is. You are suggesting that for decades people have paid for music that isn't scarce, like idiots.
Music and movies are only "non scarce" because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?
Would you care to explain to the class what econ 101 says when your retail price is below your average unit cost? What happens to companies who sell their products below their average unit cost?
Why would anyone knowingly continue to produce a product at a loss? You certainly cannot point a the current circumstances of the movie or music businesses, because that is the old system. Take that old system away, what is the new system doing? Nothing. Under the new system, nobody could afford to produce the content. Don't forget too that your "scarce goods" have costs, and take time, effort, and money to manage and distribute.
The scarce goods as a supplement concept only appears to work when there is a vibrant existing system to sponge off of, or as your sample band of the week showed, a system to aspire to be part of. Without it, would the new system be truly functional, or would a new version of the old system reappear, because it is a more vibrant system, one that focuses on the product the people truly value, as opposed to the products most of them don't?
As for my business, well, I repeat again, 14 years in the same business, no failures, no bankruptcy, no nothing. Sorry to disappoint you, I would have to say your comments appear to be intended to smear me more than anything.
I would say you are down to attacking me personally as opposed to ideas, which is never a good sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but the real world has proven me right, and you wrong, over and over and over again. Learn to deal with it.
You make the basic assumption that something is not scarce, yet it almost always is. You are suggesting that for decades people have paid for music that isn't scarce, like idiots.
Again, you are stunningly, amazingly, blindingly wrong. Definition of scarce is quite clear: what is the marginal cost? Is it $0? Then it's a non-scarce good. You keep trying to redefine it, by mixing up markets. We've had this discussion a dozen times. You choose to remain ignorant. That is your choice, but it does not make you right.
Yes, of course people have bought music in the past, and no it's not because they're idiots. But for years music *was* scarce, because it was only available via a tangible product (a product with a non-zero marginal cost). Nowadays, when people buy digital music, they are paying for convenience (a scarce good), not the music files themselves.
And, yes, *some* people will always pay above marginal cost, but you have to understand the basic pricing pressure.
Would you care to explain to the class what econ 101 says when your retail price is below your average unit cost? What happens to companies who sell their products below their average unit cost?
Well, if you can (to use your favorite phrase) think beyond the end of your nose and maybe pick up an econ text book, it's not at all hard to figure out how that works. In fact, I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU in the very last comment. If you BUNDLE the non-scarce goods with scarce goods that you can profit off of, then you can exceed the average cost in the overall selling proposition, and you very much stay in business.
It is only economically illiterates like yourself who don't seem to understand bundling as an economic concept.
Why would anyone knowingly continue to produce a product at a loss?
Because it helps them sell MORE OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY PROFIT FROM.
That's the whole point.
Honestly. You are making a total fool of yourself. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We thank you for being here. We really do appreciate your commentary. Your playing devils advocate is great for TechDirt. You make people think through the reasons why copryright needs to be redone, why and how there are different ways make money off infinite goods.
Unintended consequences are something people never really get until way later.
Also this was not sarcasm ... so no /Sarcasm tag reminder is needed asa reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only employers buy work. Nobody has ever paid for work by buying music. They paid for music (whether it was on CD, MP3, whatever).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You confuse value and cost. In the world of Software we know.. and have for sometime now, that The marginal production cost of software is zero. Zero is not the value of the software but it's understood to be between bupkis and some arbitrary number that people will pay. See the disconnect? Let me put it another way. Microsoft created an internal semi-secret policy that states, that if Linux were to gain significant market share that Windows would be given away free. They would rather loose the 200 or whatever dollars than the market share, which translates to sales of Office, Visual studio (which is also earmarked to become a loss leader in the event of a price war) and all of its other VALUE added products and services. This is understood to be good business, because they get "it". Customers are worth more than money. If you think about it another way, how much does it cost to acquire one customer? Right.. each customer that adopts early is a loss leader and margins improve over the long run. Now think about mindshare, it, on the other hand, is so much more expensive/illusive than customers, that it's not been quantified to date. I look at Google when I think Mindshare, I look at MS when I think customers.
The new economy (I hate that phrase) will be for mindshar, not customers. The exact same rules hold for music. Now do see what hes saying? The fact that people still have to pay for Windows and office is because MS beat down the competition through marketing, lobbying and FUD. Wait... maybe you have been paying attention .... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
4 megabit unlimited
2cents to download a cdr would cost them less as they can garner larger bandwith in blocks
so distribution is nearly zero
cost of stomped cdrs is nealry zero per unit too at round 5-10 cents
so whay would i pay more then 25cents which is a 500% market for any cdr of data that can be copied for no costs.
and when you consider mass internet markets...ugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
If it cost even $5000 to record the song, and they sell 1000 copies, the actual cost is $1.02 per copy (your price). So they would be losing 77 cents per song at 25 cents per.
to even get it down to break even, they would have to sell almost 22,000 copies at 25 cents.
You are making what I considering the marginal mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
Taken to the techdirt extreme, if you produce a near infinite number of copies of something for nothing, the average cost will approach (but never reach) zero, unless your fixed up front costs were zero.
Now, when you know what your market demand is (1000 copies), and you have your up front costs ($5000), and your marginal costs are 2 cents (for bandwidth), your cost per unit is $1.02. Now, if the market only supports pennies per copy, you either need to heck of a lot more sales, or it isn't worth doing the business to start with.
Y'see, if you look only at the marginal cost (2 cents) it is pretty easy to think that 10 cents is a good price... 5 times the money, wouldn't we all like it in our stock portfolio. But once you start looking at average total cost per unit, you realize that you can't do business at 10 cents and make a living. If that is all the market supports, you cannot come to market.
Taken now to the techdirt extreme, if you give away for free a near infinite number of copies, the average cost drops almost (but never completely) to zero. More importantly, no matter how you slice it, you are still out $5000.
If the bottom line doesn't work, you can't afford to be in that business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet
The bottom line stays the same, obviously, but changing how you think about those costs might help it make sense to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
What do you think of this- "TrollinTime is the premier Trollin' Troll Party on the interwebs: 100 miles from civilization. No phones, laptops, or blogging allowed. Those found blogging or doing things with a computer will be put on a pontoon with Mike's wet and slightly kidnapped dog (don't worry, Mike, she'll be promptly put on a Virgin flight bound for SFO, and well fed at the end of the week.) This is the perfect chance for Mike to troll himself while we cast our own lines and do some real trolling. Plenty of beer, and BBQ will be provided. Special appearances by the Bahama Mamas, Nebraska Sextuplets, Crash Test Hotties, Alex Trebek, Sean Connery, and Maddox."
I think this will work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
I have no idea why, but that particular line had me giggling....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
I need to hire a designer to create a series of T-shirts that will be as epic as "Three Wolf Moon", but perhaps it will be called "The Dog that CwF" Maybe it will be a t-shirt of a dog wearing a t-shirt. Hmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
"My Mom CwF for years!"
I can see it now.
But make only one of each, and sell them for $10,000 each. But give them a sample loop of someone else music for free!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
Though it puts forth a question for the ages, How do you slightly kidnap?
Beer and Alex Trebek are reasons to buy :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
Boop-boop! What is events I would be willing to attend.
I'll take The Penis Mightier Than The Sword for $500, please....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"
There's a few months to figure the final details. But if the rumors on the internet are true, Mike's dog can probably be lured away with a bacon-wrapped hotdog pizza. Mmmm. Just thinking about that makes me hungry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Music Industry
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Music Industry
CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. "...he also suggested that in hindsight, perhaps it wasn’t a great idea to raise prices 30 percent during a recession"
Even if there wasnt a recession it would have caused the same decline in sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most ironic thing.....
The thing is, he's actually *much* more charitable and sympathetic to your corporate overlords, even though he understands that their actions are completely and utterly ridiculous, counter-productive, and ultimately suicidal.
Evidence?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/004218.shtml
"While I have no clue about their feelings towards me, I should clarify my feelings towards them -- which I would hope is clear from these posts. I do not hate the recording industry or the movie industry. Quite the opposite. I'm a big fan of both music and movies. The point of this series is not to slam the organizations making these moves, but to help them. I hope they succeed, because it would be a lot easier for everyone involved. However, I do believe that their current strategies of alienating their best customers, relying on government protection, and pretending this is some sort of epic battle between good and evil aren't just doomed to fail, they're actively making things worse for themselves. What I write shouldn't be viewed as hatred for these organizations, but suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market that doesn't require everyone to hate them. I'm quite confident that the market for entertainment is only going to grow to tremendous levels going forward -- and I believe these organizations have every opportunity to capture quite a bit of it (though, they've been throwing that chance away every day). It's just a matter of recognizing the long-term strategic errors of their ways."
Ultimately, This is why TAM and others of that ilk are so fascinating -- rather than admit the (blindingly self-evident) fact that their corporate overlords "Strategy" as regards the Internet, digital culture, etc. has completely backfired, and *trying something different*, they persist in apologizing for/excusing/justifying the aforementioned idiocy, and, in so doing, hasten their corporate overlords' complete and utter ruination and collapse --- ALL THE WHILE, making themselves look like pretentious, uninformed, arrogant little shits in the process.
They persist in frantically attacking probably the *only* person on this entire planet who BOTH understands what their corporate overlords are doing, AND wants to help them survive.
That's what's fascinating to me. Beyond all the (willful) ignorance and corporate lap-doggery, TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball's chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.
Utterly astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most ironic thing.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most ironic thing.....
Once again, I have no corporate overlords, I don't work in the music or movie industry.
Mike often says nice thing about people, yet he characterizes the same people as buggy whip makers, people with their heads in the sand, and worse. Effecively, he looks at them the same sadness one might hold for the "slow kid" who never does quite manage to learn how to tie his shoes or write his name.
particularly quotes like this:
"suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market "
His first suggestion is that they should all go away, and take copyright and patents with them. That sounds like a good way to grow their businesses.
TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball's chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.
You pretty much so the same thing, making nice noises and then calling them idiots. You might understand that they don't want advice from people who's first idea is to take them out behind the shed and put them out of their misery, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The most ironic thing.....
Prove it. After all, you prefer guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The most ironic thing.....
Back to bed with you... does your mommy know you are up so late?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conversion rates
Topspin Conversion Averages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AAAARRRRRR!!!
Where is the music gone? Is all this rubbish sales man talk? Music please and FU&K all the other income revenue streams based of a year per dumb with slice of a pie chat! ARRR..
Get real music is the value and music is the experience the rest is for sales men and number crunchers!!
Support the artist = buy the music!! End of
Go to a fashion designer for a t-shirt or coffee mug that’s not music that’s something totally not music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No response from TAM makes me a sad panda
My favorite line you wrote is probably this gem:
Music and movies are only "non scarce" because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?
This line shows how you really don't understand what "scarce" vs "non-scarce" means. Scarcity is an inherent property. Anything that can be digitally encoded (and therefore easily copied for practically no marginal cost) is by definition a non-scarce good. You can't take a non-scarce good and make it scarce. Though you can use that non-scarce good to sell scarce goods. The scarce and non-scarce good compliment each other to give more value to the customer, and encourages them to buy. Distributing that non-scarce good widely gives you much more opportunity to sell scarce goods.
It's not about basing your business model on widespread piracy, it's about taking advantage of the fact that digital distribution allows for easy and cheap distribution on a level that was unheard of before. Until you can understand this very basic point, you will continue to fail at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My opinion on music, art and making a living
And the satisfaction is what people are going to pay for. Years ago, the only satisfaction you could get was purchasing a disk. Now that particular satisfaction can be acquired immediately via a digital download, IMO most people will choose instant satisfaction. People with pots of money will pay for the convenience of getting that download instantly and easily, not so wealthy people will prefer to spend the time to search for something free.
But the key is the satisfaction. The greater the desire for the music or artist, the more people will be willing to spend money on satisfying that desire.
If the marketing idolizes the performer, then I'd probably want personal contact. If the artist purveys an image, maybe I'll desire a t-shirt or poster to associate myself with that image, or more likely, want their image for myself (hair cuts, makeup, clothing etc.). If the artist is reasonable and approachable, I'll probably want to satisfy my desire to help support them in continuing to make more music.
And there's satisfaction in obtaining scarcities from artists. There's satisfaction in personal contact with somebody you idolize. Satisfaction in seeing a unique live show. Satisfaction in supporting a proficient artist with their life's work.
IMHO music is about expressing and fulfilling needs. That's the realm of the artist. The internet is killing music as an industry and re-birthing music as an art. And thankfully, it's never too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My opinion on music, art and making a living
I've been speculating that perhaps in this day and age, when technology and the Internet make music more accessible for everyone, if the "rock star as idol" might be changing.
Here's something I just posted yesterday.
Participatory Art Is Revolutionary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty Lights anyone? Massive free downloads = touring the world to large sold out theatres.
That is simple economics and nobody can disagree with the facts.
In the old model he would have struggled to sell a few club records and get anywhere. Now, he is known to all the people he should be reaching and is making a great living - far more than he could have done under a traditional old school deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]