Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope?
from the uh,-no dept
When we talk about the various new business models that work well for content creators, one of the complaints that some of our regular critics have pointed out is that if most of the people are getting the content for free, and only a small group of superfans are paying, aren't those who pay getting "ripped off" somehow -- leading to them eventually jumping on the free-rider bandwagon and leaving no one to pay? Reader JJ sent over a well-articulated version of this argument by a self-described cynical musician in a Polish hard rock band. He describes this as: The Hunt For The Big Dope.Tragically, this is a total misunderstanding of the economic arguments people make. In fact, it's a gross distortion of the argument to make it easy to dismiss, rather than taking the time to understand it. In fact, what we're really arguing is the opposite of finding the big dope. It's about using content to create fewer dopes, replacing them with people who are willingly buying something of value that they actually want. It's the old system that was focused on getting big dopes to pay for things they didn't need or want. The new business models that we talk about -- focused on giving people a reason to buy -- are about just that: offering scarce value, above and beyond the content, that is worth buying -- and that helps fund the content creation. There's no big dope in this scenario, because the people who are buying get a lot more than just the content, and they're thrilled with the transaction. Everyone comes out of the transaction better off.
If you believe in the "big dope" theory put forth by this guy, then anyone who buys a car is a "big dope," because they're financing all of those commercials, which they get to see on TV without paying for them. The percentage of people who buy a car that they saw in a TV commercial compared to the number of people who actually see the commercial is a tiny, tiny number. But does that make those buyers "big dopes?" Of course not. They got something they wanted (a car). Yes, that's a more extreme example, but when you recognize that the content is acting as an advertisement for the bigger reasons to buy, making them more valuable, the analogy fits perfectly. A large percentage of people will never buy products they find out about via an advertisement. But some do. And if enough do, and the product they're driven to buy is scarce and valuable enough, the company makes money. Same thing for content creators.
They're not looking for "big dopes." They're looking for people who want to make an informed decision, in which they get something of additional scarce value, well beyond the content. That sure beats the old system, which appeared to be focused on hiding the content to force a bunch of dopes to pay without knowing what they'd get -- leading them to be disappointed all too often. No offense to this particular musician, but I'd rather have the system I describe, with no dopes at all, than the old one he appears to pine for, in which all your fans are considered dopes.
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, economics, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Essentially, in the analogy, musicians are an ad agency with nothing to sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The musicians are selling themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Survey says... DING DING DING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are paying a bunch more money to get some dealer added features on a car while someone else is getting the factory equipped model for free then you might just be a big dope. Its really about how the buyer feels about the transaction at the end of the day. If you feel like you got a good value then you are not a big dope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's up to the musician to provide an experience outside of the prerecorded music tracks that fans will pay for. The prerecorded music tracks aren't the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most consumers do not value TV commercials. Many consumers still value recorded music and are willing to pay for it. There is still value in recorded music, there is little value in TV commercials by themselves.
For car companies the main product is the car itself, the work product of the car company is the car itself. For the musician the work product is the music. Is a musician still a musician if the musician's main job is designing, producing and selling 'scarce' (which I take to mean physical, hard to copy) goods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In all these cases, the recorded music essentially acts as the advertising for the artist and other scarce things. The recording of music in itself stops being the main job, and it becomes focused back on live performance, commission work, patronage and unique value that can only be achieved through physical means as part of a recorded music bundle as it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but my music is special. it's so special that people need to pay money to hear it. it's not a commercial.
saying that my music is an advertisement for t-shirts is lumping it into the same category as a jingle for laundry detergent. that hurts my feelings :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just don't understand analogies, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you are saying is that one of the main products that a musician produces has little to no value, it should be given away. I disagree, there is some non-zero value in recorded music, its just a whole lot less than .99/track or 1.30/track. The music is the main product and it has value. There are different price points depending on how you want to get the music and how much of an experience you are willing to pay for. There was a cost to produce the original recording and believe it or not there is a small cost in making the copies (in the case of digital recordings, the cost of the copies is just really small and distributed between the seller and the buyer but its still non-zero).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes they do - or at least, they can, like turning ads into small skits, product placement in shows (making the shows advertising for a product that's in it) and various other things.
The overall point though is that copies of music can be used as advertising in themselves.
No one's arguing that. They're arguing the value of using copies of music as advertising for other scarce things, using this analogy to help demonstrate that - a free advert, which may be done in various ways and yes, may in themselves hold value that can drive attention to a product that people may want and is scarce so they'll be willing to pay for it in a way that's long-term sustainable.
The majority of money is leaving the market for people paying for access to songs when they already have the ability to access it in so many ways. The song may hold value, but not necessarily in a way that can demand significant money from charging people to be able to access it, especially for smaller artists and as time goes on. Instead use that to drive attention and value in other areas that are scarce and can be made to be even more scarce by increasing demand through something that effectively has no limit on how much demand it can satisfy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not what's being said. It has value but that doesn't necessarily mean it should directly cost money. The air you breath has value, yet you don't pay nearly as much as it's worth to you.
Just because something has value doesn't mean one has to directly charge for it or monopolize the value in which only minimizes consumer surplus. They can ask for donations or find some other business model to provide funding for providing that value.
For instance, by giving away music an artist can provide others with an incentive to donate to the artist. That incentive makes the music more valuable to the artist because now the artist can get paid for his/her music. Or by giving away music an artist can promote their concerts, which makes the music more valuable to the artist because it makes it easier for the artist, if s/he makes good music, to get people to pay for concerts.
It's just a way of the artist to figure out a way to make the music more valuable to the artist. And besides, at least to some extent an artist should make music because the music itself has value to the artist (ie: the artist enjoys listening to it or enjoys making music). Well, if an artist wants to give away music, there is nothing wrong with that, they should be allowed to. Perhaps that's an end in itself.
But we shouldn't create an entire burdensome copyprivilege system that puts the burden of proof on me to prove that a song isn't copyprivileged before I download a song that I think is under a creative commons license, especially when the RIAA and copyprivilege holders provide no means for me to know what songs they have privileges on. I don't know about you but I'm not psychic and I bet most of the people here aren't either.
Or perhaps I can call an authorized/qualified psychic who can tell me if the RIAA et al own a song and if the psychic is wrong I can sue the psychic after getting sued by the RIAA.
Laws that require citizens to be psychic should not exist.
The fact is that no one owes anyone a monopoly on the songs they made and society does not owe anyone the effort and burden and invasion of privacy and restrictions of behavior and technology and the cost required to implement, litigate, and enforce such monopolies. If you don't like it don't make music, no one is forcing you to, but don't put such a burden on the rest of society just to serve your selfishness. Instead, serve the economy well by finding another job, others will make music perfectly fine without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For most musicians this is a non-issue anyway. They already are giving away their music.
The bigger challenge is finding what people will pay for. And that hasn't been easy for most musicians.
1. The recession is cutting out a lot of spending. When you are worried about covering your bills, you're not going to buy music-related merchandise.
2. There are a limited number of venues to play. So musicians are in competition with each other for those live gig opportunities.
3. There are new technologies being released weekly that allow people to make their own music. So there the number of musicians is increasing all the time.
The last development is great for creativity, but not so great for musicians who hope they are offering a unique service. For example:
A lot of gig opportunities for musicians dried up after DJs became popular. Clubs and people throwing parties were just as happy (and found it cheaper) to have someone play records rather than instruments.
Then karaoke came it and a number of bars found letting the audience sing was a popular and cheaper alternative to having live music.
Now we've got technology that allows people with no musical skills to press buttons and make music. Most of it is online or on mobile devices, but the seeds have been planted to turn people from fans into creators. Technology democratizes music.
Sure, there are Lady Gagas, but that's really about a big marketing machine. And I suspect her staying power will be relatively limited because there will be other Lady Gagas to come along. As Warhol predicted, everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't even address what you quoted. Instead you ignored it and said something completely irrelevant.
"The bigger challenge is finding what people will pay for. And that hasn't been easy for most musicians."
The point of an economy is to create aggregate output. Music itself is aggregate output.
"1. The recession is cutting out a lot of spending. When you are worried about covering your bills, you're not going to buy music-related merchandise."
To the extent that this is true it also makes copyright irrelevant.
"2. There are a limited number of venues to play. So musicians are in competition with each other for those live gig opportunities."
Which means that musicians are indeed willing to play music, there is competition and the creation of music. Again, the point of an economy is to create aggregate output and you admit that this is exactly what is happening.
"3. There are new technologies being released weekly that allow people to make their own music. So there the number of musicians is increasing all the time."
Good, more aggregate output, the whole purpose of an economy.
"The last development is great for creativity, but not so great for musicians who hope they are offering a unique service."
A: technology gives more people a wider combination of sounds they can create at a cheaper price. This makes it easier for more people to create a unique product.
B: Creativity itself involves creating something UNIQUE. So if it's great for creativity it's also great for uniqueness.
C: Granting a monopoly is no way to ensure a unique service. A monopoly does not increase net diversity and hence does nothing to promote the progress and serve the purpose of an economy to begin with, to increase aggregate output. So even if you consider diversity a form of aggregate output a monopoly does not serve that purpose of creating diversity. Even if an artist can not differentiate himself/herself because everyone else is using up the entire pool of possible sound combinations (which I doubt) then the economy is doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing, serving the public good and optimizing aggregate output.
"A lot of gig opportunities for musicians dried up after DJs became popular. Clubs and people throwing parties were just as happy (and found it cheaper) to have someone play records rather than instruments."
and what's wrong with this? It's serving the purpose of an economy, to increase aggregate output.
"Then karaoke came it and a number of bars found letting the audience sing was a popular and cheaper alternative to having live music."
Again, if that's what the public wants, what's wrong with that?
"Now we've got technology that allows people with no musical skills to press buttons and make music. Most of it is online or on mobile devices, but the seeds have been planted to turn people from fans into creators. Technology democratizes music."
If you don't like a particular musician because you don't like his musical skills you are free not to fund that musician and you are free to find a musician that you do like and donate to them or pay for their music or concerts, etc... But don't make others subsidize your wish just so you can have your subjective notion of what you consider to be quality music.
"Sure, there are Lady Gagas, but that's really about a big marketing machine. And I suspect her staying power will be relatively limited because there will be other Lady Gagas to come along. As Warhol predicted, everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame."
and to the extent that this is true it's exactly what the market/public wants and the purpose of an economy is to serve the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and by subsidize I also mean subsidizing your wish with laws that put a burden on the rest of society, restrict our freedoms, and cost society money and resources to enforce. Putting such a burden on society just to serve your wish in this manner is selfish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes you think I was disagreeing with you? Yes, in the aggregate economy there is more music than ever. That IS a good thing. It may be harder for individual musicians to make their money solely from music, but there is more music and more people making music.
I don't get into copyright discussions because it seems to be a lot of words, both pro and con, with little being accomplished. I don't think the laws will be changed soon. If we can't get a decent health care bill passed, why would changing copyrights be a priority for politicians?
Artists can make their content freely available and some of them do. There are a lot of musicians who aren't going to sue you if you use their music.
Further, there are so many new technological tools coming out that allow everyone to make their own music that we'll each be able to make unique music, therefore making copyright a further non-issue. If I can program a computer to make me a unique piece of music that doesn't duplicate or sample someone else's, then it's mine to do with as I wish.
As I said before, for a lot of musicians, copyright laws are pretty much irrelevant to what they are doing so if you don't like copyrights, then seek those musicians out and use their music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is an issue because society still has to go through the work of determining what is and isn’t copyright. For instance some piece of non copyright content might mistakenly be taken down because Google/Youtube thought they were copyright or because someone mistakenly or maliciously flagged it as infringing. This is a COST to society and this cost is something we shouldn’t ignore.
“I don't think the laws will be changed soon.”
This is no excuse to ignore bad laws and not do anything about trying to change them.
“If we can't get a decent health care bill passed, why would changing copyrights be a priority for politicians? “
If I go to the store and they intentionally overcharge my credit card by $5, it’s not that much money but it’s still enough to infuriate many people. Likewise, even if these issues aren’t big issues (which I disagree with) that’s no excuse to ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys on Techdirt and other places can talk about it. It's just not something I address. There's only so much time in the world and it's not a pressing issue for me.
If I am going to lobby politicians, it's not something I'm going to tell them to change.
I think if you guys are going to get things changed, talking amongst yourselves may feel pro-active to you, but I think you might need to set up a legislative lobbying agenda which gives politicians and interested parties reasons to make the change. Telling everyone that society would be better off without copyright and patents probably isn't going to do it because there are a lot of vested interests (with money) in maintaining the status quo.
Some have argued on Techdirt that health care costs would go down if patents on pharmaceuticals were shorter or non-existent. Now that's a worthwhile cause. Can you produce meaningful change here? In the greater scheme of things, it's far more important than discussing whether music should be freely available. In essence music already is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This would be someone outside of Techdirt would do, and then Techdirt would whine about how it's not right.
It's very circular in nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I am going to lobby politicians, it's not something I'm going to tell them to change.
Translation: I only care about ME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's another fun site.
C O D E O R G A N
Is the result great music? No, but anyone can do it and it is fun. A lot of what passes for popular music today isn't great either. That's kind of the point. If people want quality, they'd focus on the best music recorded over the last 100 years. But a lot of times with the music they listen to, quality has very little to do with it. So I can imagine a time when people are more pleased with what they have created themselves than what others have produced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone needs to upgrade that guy from a Power Mac 7500 to an Intel Mac and get him a copy of Logic Studio. If he has some cash left over, he should also grab a Motif Rack XS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are confusing price and value. Just because something is priced at $0 doesn't mean it has no value. It has tremendous value. The question is how do you capture that value, and with an infinite good, like music, you do so by making something else -- something scarce -- more valuable by connecting it to the music. Thus, the more widespread the music is, the more valuable that other scarcity is, and the more you can charge for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suppose all musicians really need to become "The artist formerly known as..." and start creating a whole lot of not music to sell. Since the music has no cash value that is. Sounds like a crappy deal for people that want to focus on music and not something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an issue I have been writing about a lot. As your income moves farther and farther from the music itself, then you might as well consider all of your non-music options to make money, too. In many cases you'll make more money and have more time to be creative if you have a good-paying day job and then make music for fun, creativity, self-expression, etc.
I think there has been a prejudice that if you aren't making your living solely as a musician, you aren't good enough at it. But when you stop to analyze it, sometimes (actually often) it's not worth the hassle to do all the side projects you might have to do, many of which may only pay you a minimum wage when you calculate it by the hour. So if we start taking down the walls between "amateur" and "professional" and start thinking of everyone as a musician, just in varying degrees, then we may begin to look at the options in a more realistic and ultimately more satisfying way.
Five Degrees of Separation in Music Income
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said that a musician's main job is designing, producing, and selling physical goods?
In many cases you'll make more money and have more time to be creative if you have a good-paying day job and then make music for fun, creativity, self-expression, etc.
Especially if you aren't very good at it. That's just the way free markets work. Many people just don't have what it takes to be successful as a musician. Now I know that they tell little kids that they can be whatever whatever they want to be when they grow up, (like a super rich celebrity or whatever, as long as it's rich), but for most that just isn't true. Sorry.
I think there has been a prejudice that if you aren't making your living solely as a musician, you aren't good enough at it. But when you stop to analyze it, sometimes (actually often) it's not worth the hassle to do all the side projects you might have to do, many of which may only pay you a minimum wage when you calculate it by the hour. So if we start taking down the walls between "amateur" and "professional" and start thinking of everyone as a musician, just in varying degrees, then we may begin to look at the options in a more realistic and ultimately more satisfying way.
Okay, so everyone's a musician. Some are just better at it than others. Much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about more financially successful than others? I would say that some of the artists who do well on the Top 40 aren't necessarily more talented than others.
I think if you are popular on a Disney show, for example, you're likely to have young fans who come to your shows, though you might not be consider the most talented artist out there among music purists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Music purists"? What a bunch of snobbery. It's up to the fans to determine who they like.
You seem to have the mindset that "a musician is a musician is a musician and the only difference is the marketing". That sounds like someone trying to sell "marketing" to musicians by convincing them that their talents are worthless and it all comes down to "marketing". Oh, wait. You're a marketer. That *is* what you're trying to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to have the mindset that "a musician is a musician is a musician and the only difference is the marketing". That sounds like someone trying to sell "marketing" to musicians by convincing them that their talents are worthless and it all comes down to "marketing". Oh, wait. You're a marketer. That *is* what you're trying to do.
You're pretty funny. You take issue me saying that not everyone would find Disney artists an example of talent rather than marketing. Okay. I'm fine with that. Let the fans buy what they want.
As for the marketing, I'm not selling anything. I've done marketing for artists, pro bono because they were too broke to hire me. I've been a sponsor and a patron. I've been one of those who has given artists money and free labor to help them out.
What I have been writing about is the change I have seen in music consumption.
(1) People can get music for free.
(2) The recession has hit their wallets so they don't have as much to spend right now.
(3) Technology is coming out that allows people with no musical experience to make music.
(4) The Internet has given people many entertainment options. Music is just one of them.
What a lot of people are talking about in terms of the future of the music industry is really just the major label system on a much smaller scale.
What I am talking about is more revolutionary. And whenever Techdirt folks argue about copyright, I say, "Whatever. The music is going to be free. The creation of the music is going to be free. The scarcities built into music are also going to disappear. People will be able to make for themselves what they now buy from others." Will it mess up the income streams for some people hoping to make their livings from music? Yes. Of course a few will be able to do it. But we'll have a lot more musicians than we have now making music and giving it away, which will continue to change the economics of music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? Who said they need to design, produce and sell those goods? That's the role of a label/manger/etc. if the artist doesn't want to do it.
I suppose all musicians really need to become "The artist formerly known as..." and start creating a whole lot of not music to sell. Since the music has no cash value that is. Sounds like a crappy deal for people that want to focus on music and not something else.
Strawman alert. Debunked a while back:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091208/1116027253.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One one hand you say that folks that want to focus on music should have a label/manager foucs on the non-music part then on ther other hand you link to an article that says that labels are trying to take advantage of musicians by telling them that artists should just be artisits. Which is it then labels help or labels just take advantage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(wave hands) These are not the scarce goods you're looking for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't go to work without knowing I'm going to get paid as I produce output. So why should musicians?
Oh, because they traditionally have always produced an output that others tied to scarce resources for them (tapes, vinyl, CDs, videos) or that they did themselves (bar concerts) or a combination of the two (full tours are usually "co-productions").
So to say that there are artists who "only focus on the music" and expect to get paid for non-scarce resources is a strawman. There are no such people (or extremely few of them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if they don't want to do it themselves, they can partner with/hire someone to do it for them. this talked about a lot on techdirt. it's called "the fifth beatle".
Which is it then labels help or labels just take advantage?
i agree mike. you need to confine this discussion to single lines of sensationalist soundbite/bumper sticker friendly rhetoric. stop making the issue so complex. pick a side, we're at war!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shall we talk about how to do this? Or is this a discussion that needs to be conducted on a music forum?
I think most musicians would love to have the extra help. "Where do you find it?" and "How do you compensate the help?" are major questions worthy of discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, they work with someone on the business side -- a manager or a label that gets it or whatever.
One one hand you say that folks that want to focus on music should have a label/manager foucs on the non-music part then on ther other hand you link to an article that says that labels are trying to take advantage of musicians by telling them that artists should just be artisits. Which is it then labels help or labels just take advantage?
There's a difference between GOOD labels and BAD labels. I figured that would be obvious, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there is. You falsely claimed that musicians couldn't just focus on music. That's not true.
Your proof of my straw man doesn't work in the case of 'good' labels.
Huh?!? You claimed that musicians couldn't just focus on music. The good labels prove that *if they want to* they can.
I still don't think recorded music should be free.
You're making a moral statement. Hell, I don't think music *should* be free. I'm just saying what the economic forces say it *will* be. It's not about "should," it's about "will."
I think there is a price point that makes sense for everyone.
Your basic economics would tell you that's $0.
It may be that the price point is low and that most musicians cannot sell enough recordings at that price point to make a living.
But it's never been about selling "recordings" anyway. It's always been about selling something scarce: a piece of plastic (scarce) made valuable by the (infinite) recordings on it. A concert ticket (scarce) made valuable by the (infinite) music played inside.
I just don't buy the argument that the recordings need to be free in support of something else.
Again, not "need," but "will." Don't confuse moral arguments with economic arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
price and value are two totally different things. value is determined by the customer, price is determined by the market.
something can be extremely valuable with a price that is zero, especially when that product is not scarce: like air.
digital media is not scarce. however valuable it may be, it can easily be obtained for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess you've never tried to buy one then, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a demonstration of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So that must mean that if I give to charity I must be getting ripped off somehow. Great argument. Now charitable people are dopes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or people who buy CDs and MP3s ... I can get that for free from the radio or BitTorrent sites. Those people are the biggest dopes of them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the earlier system wanted to sell $5 burgers to as many as possible. but since people are getting burgers for free everywhere, the new system is looking for a handful of dopes willing to shell out 100 quid -- it's called connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You want some better control over what you produce? Start producing, or at least dealing in, physical goods and stop moaning. Even then, you won't be guaranteed a profit in a free market. But IP maximalists are fundamentally against free markets anyway, so I suppose that argument is wasted on you.
[ 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: Re:
No; hence asking why he doesn't appear to feel charities are a valid comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or you could get a real job, hippie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People that buy hardcover books instead of checking them out for free from the library ... big dopes.
People that go to see movies in theaters instead of watching them at home when it airs for free on television ... big dopes.
People that buy CDs instead of listening to music for free on the radio ... big dopes.
People that watch TV and then go out and buy anything advertised during it ... big dopes.
People that buy newspapers instead of reading free newspapers or watching the news on TV for free ... big dopes.
A lotta big dopes in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Library lets you keep the book forever,
Television is showing the movie either when its released or giving you a physical copy along with the broadcast for free,
Radio's also gave you a replayable copy of the songs,
This one made no real sense...
This is exactly why the newspapers are going out of buisness ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real big dopes
No no no no no!
The real big dopes are the people who get everything for free - because in the long term their musical taste will disappear from the culture.
When you pay the most important thing you get is a say in the future direction of music. This is the real big (elephant in the room) reason to buy - and it is always there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real big dopes
Thank you! Exactly my view on this issue and well put.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real big dopes
Based on your logic, ALL musical tastes would disappear. Think about it. If free equals gone then all free equals all gone. What a bunch of baloney. Anyone that likes a particular style will ALWAYS be free to create music in that style. Please name a single one that actually has disappeared from culture entirely. I'm betting you can't. Remember, not all people create works of art for money or fame, which incidentally have no bearing on its quality (only the deluded believe that). Some do it simply because they can, for the love of it. Thanks to the internet, these people now have access to an audience, something they likely didn't have before. Just look at the explosion of digital photography for proof. One could argue that the sheer number of people creating art in the digital age is what is harming the industry, not the pirates. When you have a lot of talent churning out such a huge body of work, monetary value quickly becomes irrelevant. When that's the case, each work must be judged individually by its own highly subjective merits. As the saying goes, one mans garbage is another mans treasure. All the internet has really done is empowered everyone equally, and isn't equality the thing culture should always be striving for ultimately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real big dopes
I think you're missing his point. Consider three stereotypes:
Those who pay (traditional consumers?) spend a lot but have little control over who the money goes to. They participate in the market but often through a middleman.
Those who consume for free to decide how to pay (try before you buy?) can spend as much or as little as they want but are confident in their ability to choose where their money goes. They participate in a more efficient market.
Those who don't pay (freeloaders?) spend nothing and participate in no market. I'm not actually sure there is evidence that these people exist. Richard's point was about these mythical freeloaders losing out because they don't participate in the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real big dopes
which is itself a form of paying...
"Please name a single one that actually has disappeared from culture entirely. I'm betting you can't. "
You are setting up a straw man here.
I wouldn't expect any style to disappear in practice - because for any worthwhile form of the art there will always be people who are prepared to pay - either in money or in kind (by doing the work themselves).
The argument was hypothetical - but just because something hasn't happened (say global nuclear destruction) doesn't mean that it couldn't happen if the right people pressed the right buttons.
and of course people who freeload do give up their personal input into the direction of culture. A whole style might not be likely to disappear - but a particular artist might well be forced to give up without support. If you liked that artist's output - but just freeloaded and never paid then it would be your fault and you would suffer along with him.
Reading the rest of your comment I'm not sure why you disagreed with me so strongly - because most of the rest of what you said is totally compatible with my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real big dopes
And if you like musicians who can't do that then tough shit for you and the stupid asshole playing the tunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real big dopes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real big dopes
No you misunderstand my point. Firstly by paying I don't mean just money - I mean any contribution that helps the music to happen. This would include (but not be limited to) all of the following.
Making the music yourself for free.
Letting a musician friend sleep on your floor so he can play a concert.
Writing Free (GPL) software that helps musicians (e.g. Lilypond)
Going around telling everyone you meet about this wonderful new composer/band/singer/etc that you've just discovered.
and even...Uploading stuff to bittorrent so that others can share it. (ie contributing your bandwidth)
All of these (and many more that you can thing of) are all "ways of paying". It was never my intention to suggest that there was anything special about paying with money.
However if you do NONE of the above, just sit back and download freebies then you are not having any impact on the culture. As such your taste will not form part of the cultural progress. This is NOT a value judgment - its just a fact - and exactly similar to the fact that if you don't vote then you'll probably get an MP/congressman/senator/president/prime minister/chancellor that doesn't share your views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real big dopes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real big dopes
This is very true, although whenever we establish certain popularity standards, someone will likely game the system and then the standard becomes less meaningful.
Friends and plays used to matter on MySpace until computers started jacking up the numbers. Now people are no longer getting label interest based on those numbers.
I've been watching someone who is very popular on YouTube, but I haven't been sure if that will translate into any kind of financial revenue (other than YouTube ad revenue) yet. Popularity when it is free doesn't always mean fans will support it with their spending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real big dopes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, generally I like the analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
Indeed. The key to how American government works these days is: It's all about protecting the middlemen. Those guys who will insert themselves into any situation and start extracting fees and rents. Anytime legislation makes no sense (health care, broadband, etc.) just see who is in the middle collecting rents and it suddenly makes a twisted kind of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
change the perspective.
Would it be fair to call the collector, the one person who actually buys the work a 'dope' while the rest of the visitors are freeloaders? That's highly insulting to both sides. There is more to culture than money changing hands.
I prefer to think of it as a supportive community made up of both fans and patrons.
Do I want more of my fans to become patrons, and support me by buying something? Absolutely. I like paying rent and having food. But I'm not entitled to their money. I have to work for it. I have to create something that they feel is worth buying.
Music isn't much different. you have the fans who listen to and love the work, and you have the patrons, who buy the albums, pick up some merch, buy loooooots of t-shirts, and go to the shows.
They aren't a 'dope' when they buy it, they aren't a 'freeloader' if they don't. They are fans, supporters, and patrons, and even if they don't choose to buy anything this time, having them around is far better than being ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: change the perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: change the perspective.
Surely all a musician has to sell is themself? Whilst the content they produce might be freely available - once they have established a connection with their fans/supporters those very people will aid them in the production of more content.
The person in the original article seems to be quite insulting to our own "fans" who are quite happy to view meeting us and communicating with us as a "scarce value"and have indeed helped us upgrade our equipment and often take us for meals etc and not at Muckdonalds!
Totally agree with Kyle, particularly:
"But I'm not entitled to their money. I have to work for it. I have to create something that they feel is worth buying."
Perhaps if Kyle was a "performance artist" it would be more applicable to musicians - particularly those who use performing live as their initial way of CwF? Also the production of content is cheap compared to the cost of performance - and it is the funding of that particular way of CwF that needs to be looked at more closely, not these dead arguments about "oh my god everything is free what am I gonna do".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: change the perspective.
That was half sarcastic... I am only glad that live playing is important again, and if that is "the original" JEDIDAH speaks about, then I agree. Only reason to do anything businness-wise is to get gigs as far as I'm concerned, old system new system never mind. The amount of bullshit seems less this way, I am in general happy with all these changes. And yes, if Kyle was a "performance artist", it would be more similar, but still not the same. More like theater, which has its own plethora of problems, but different ones and these don't necesserily stem from technology.
Another point I disagree is:
"Also the production of content is cheap compared to the cost of performance."
It really depends on the music. A good studio still costs quite a lot, and there is good reasons for that. What does a small group need for a concert? Except of course flight tickets, if the members live thousands of kilometers apart :P
Or do you mean duplication by "production", as of pressing CD's, releasing digital etc.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: change the perspective.
"Also the production of content is cheap compared to the cost of performance."
Yeah by that we meant that many, not all, who prefer the non-live route, also utilise home recording. We don't record at home and we agree with you - 'cos we use a good/expensive studio partly for the gear partly for the "ears" and experience of the guy who runs it.
"What does a small group need for a concert?"
A small band (we're a duo) still has to pay crew/driver and hire vans, petrol, food, hotels, pay up-front merch costs etc etc. Also we 'sometimes' have to pay upfront air travel costs if the promoter won't stump it up.
Glad you agree about "live" being important - there is too much theory on here based around doing it as if Rock 'n'Roll bands were bloggers - and not enough talk on the realities of touring with no financial support from anyone .
Good luck to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: change the perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: change the perspective.
Now, some believe (as I do) that most people who download MP3's for free are (in their own head) listening to the radio. These are people who would normally never buy but download just because they want to hear it and see what's what. As a musician, you can disagree with this attitude and scream "theif!" if you like, but you do so at your own peril.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: change the perspective.
You're overlooking the difference between scarce and non-scarce goods. An original painting is a naturally scarce good. A reproduction of it isn't. By the same token, an original musical recording is a naturally scarce good. A reproduction of it isn't.
Scarce vs. non-scarce is an important distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: change the perspective.
Viewing an original in a gallery is the non-scarce good Kyle Clements was talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: change the perspective.
this is where music and paintings fail to compare. a reproduction of a painting requires time and attention to detail to look good. unlike with music, reproductions of paintings are still scarce goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: change the perspective.
No, reproductions are not naturally scarce goods. That's exactly why people add numbers and autographs to them, and so forth in an attempt to create scarce goods. That's also why numbered prints are more valuable: because there is only one with that number. And if there's only one of something, then it's scarce.
Viewing an original in a gallery is the non-scarce good Kyle Clements was talking about.
Who said otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: change the perspective.
Say a photograph of a painting exists, and is digitized as a JPEG file. That file gets spread around, posted to blogs, etc.
The question is whether that hurts the painter or not.
It might - but only if the painter is not selling the painting or prints, but limits himself to selling JPEG's of his work.
How many painters out there are stupid enough to believe this is a viable economic strategy? Not many, I'll bet. They sell the painting itself, or (possibly) high-quality prints of the painting, and consider the JPEG to be the equivalent of viewing the work in a gallery. And they are right to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: change the perspective.
Who said anything about prints? Reproductions can take other forms as well.
Say a photograph of a painting exists, and is digitized as a JPEG file.
Sigh. Otherwise known as a "digital reproduction".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real thing.
Oh. I beg to differ. There is a HUGE difference between an original work and a "copy" in music. It's just that most of us are used to only ever consuming the "copies" and have no awareness or appreciation for real music.
And musicians still make most of their money off of "originals" just like a painter does. The originals remain the most scarce aspect of art. Although there are plenty of people willing to settle for copies.
Your average "consumer" will mistake a print bought in the museum gift shop for a genuine painting. Music is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real thing.
Good point, I wonder how many artists get paid by people watching them paint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real thing.
I've seen several who did over the years. But most, it seems, are neither that resourceful nor enterprising. They prefer the copyright crutch instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real thing.
With that level of rigid thinking you could be a recording industry exec.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real thing.
Who say an "artist" should only have to work 12 hours a week?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real thing.
Oh. I beg to differ. There is a HUGE difference between an original work and a "copy" in music.
No, there isn't. The original in this case is a sound recording. That is what gets copied, and the copy is exactly like the original. It sounds like what you are referring to is a performance, which obviously cannot be copied exactly.
The analogy with painting:
1. process of creating the painting = music performance
2. original painting = recording
3. copy of the painting = copy of the recording
1 is unique. 2 is unique for the painting but not the music. 3 is not unique for either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real thing.
Consider the case of the Beatles' original studio recordings. So there's no difference (in economic value) between those and a Bealtes record? Seriously? Then I suggest you try buying them in order to learn the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real thing.
however your comment about musicians making most of their money from originals baffles me. unless you consider live performances to be "originals." personally I don't classify them that way, they're a separate scarce product. care to explain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Dope
Free Market Capitalism has been demonized as what it wrong with the world by most politicians, despot, and evil two bit dictator the world over, when point in fact it is the only thing that is right.
Capitalism threw off Russia's yoke from Poland and destroyed Communism, and Fascism, and Slavery.
Logically this can be proven in about a minute. But ignorance is the tool by which those that want to control people to get those same people to go against it and their own self-interest.
Capitalism can't be defeated by any other way other than by the sanction of those it can help the most who have been brainwashed into believing it is bad for them.
Kind of like when a witch doctor convinces someone with an infection that penicillin is evil medicine. Same level of stupidity and ignorance in both cases.
But he bemoans the fact that he can't figure out how it works. But is it really his fault? I don't think so.
Do they teach any classes on Capitalism in regular Schools, and let's not even mention in Colleges? Of course the answer is no. Let's remember the adage, Those that do, do. Those that can't teach.
Left wing socialist loons flock to the College level teaching profession and thereby ignorance of Capitalism is perpetuated.
The media supports that Evil Capitalist theory as well.
Capitalism is the only system that does not depend on hand outs. It depends on the unforced cooperation by two people exchanging true value of one kind for another.
In this case, a small bit of money in exchange for the pleasure of listening to music.
Capitalism is the only system where Big Brother does not force you to do this or restrict you from doing that by regulation with threats of fines, imprisonment, and ultimately at the end of a gun.
The only thing that I have to say is that guys like that make it easier for guys like me, my clients, and all of the rest of us that do understand it.
It is unfortunate that he blames the lack of profits on everyone else and not on those that are clueless about how Capitalism really works.
Also, I will say that if he really wants to profit from Music, go buy some stock in Apple as iTunes "gets" it.
There are many Indy bands in the US that are making boatloads of money selling their own tunes on their own websites. And, they are making far more than if they had signed up with a major label.
The Music industry as a whole is clueless about what is really happening.
Free songs help it, not hurt it but you have to understand how for it to work.
They are much like those in the transportation industry in the 1900's that bemoaned Horses being replaced by Cars. The smart ones switched over, while the whiners complained about it and went out of business.
Capitalistic Darwinism at it's finest! :)
Does he have to stay ignorant? No! It is simply a choice that he or anyone like him makes.
Here is a great resource on Capitalism. http://mises.org/
and a wonderful speech on Money and Capitalism.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
There are lots of Dopes out there but in this case, he needs to hold up a mirror.
But, he only has to stay a "Dope" if he wants to. A potential Capitalist is a terrible thing to waste.
Hopefully he won't choose to stay ignorant forever.
Cheers,
Andrew Anderson
"Capitalist"
21to21.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalism
They may start of with capitalism - but as soon as they start to get somewhere they immediately switch to feudalism - trying to establish a "rights based" monopoly for themselves.
Similarly the main problem with socialism is that most socialists don't really like it either. Look at Peter Mansdelson. Professed socialist who regularly gets wined and dined by the rich and powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fortunately, there have always been big jerks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good comments
In particular I like the museum analogy, the capitalism and feudalism, and some very apt and prime examples of why it doesn't work as claimed in the article.
Which brings me to a couple of well worn but none the less true points.
One is that the value of an item is only worth what the buyer will pay. In a nutshell, the buyer has to see some sort of value (in his eyes) for the item to be willing to shell out the money. It does not matter if the value seen by the buyer is there or not. It only matters that he perceives value and is willing to pay because of that.
The other is that culture is not something you can tack a dollar sign on and say that a particular fad/idea/common belief is worth that amount. Often it is the other way around and without the culture to drive the perceived value; it has none, as with the case of the museum.
Corporations love the idea that they set the value, ie the selling price of an item, be it music, apples, or licensing. That culture is a buyable item where you go to the counter and pick it up on demand for money.
It doesn't work this way in reality. Anyone can make a pet rock with a small amount of effort and they don't have to pay for packaging, store overhead, nor even taxes to do so. This again demonstrates that value is seen or not by the buyer and that in turn is what drives the sale.
There are no Big Dopes in this. There may be misguided or fooled Dopes but they still see value whether anyone else around them does or not.
A fool and his money are soon parted is based on the misguided perceptions of value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogies are not your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people seem to be getting it. Perhaps understanding analogies is not your strong suit?
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy
Pronunciation: ə-ˈna-lə-jē
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology
synonyms see likeness.
This is my understanding of analogy, maybe it is not the same understanding as the others here. So what about the definition of "axiom"? Like "there no free lunches", "only air is free", "somebody always pays", "he who pays the piper calls the tune" etc. etc. Abundance, scarcity, control fits into every one of these somewhere. So if you have made your analogies around "this is scarce and that is scarce", or "this is abundant and that is abundant", or "this is controlled and that is controlled" for similar reasons, then we have "by definition" an analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Analogy
I suspect the RIAA doesn't want to spend money on RIAA defenders who speak English as a primary language and so they are now offshoring their paid defenders to other countries with people who speak English as a secondary or tertiary language instead. It's cheaper, but it results in people who are too overwhelmed with language dynamics to put up a decent argument.
and by the time you become more fluent in English you will probably then require higher pay, after which the RIAA will refuse to pay and they will hire some other English illiterate people to argue their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Analogy
Thanks for clearing that up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scarce value.
Example: Way back when TV content used to be funded by ads, then with the newer technology there was a business model that "we won't broadcast this content but feed it into controlled closed systems and charge for it. Get the relationship? "Being able to charge = being able to control". The internet is not a closed controlled system, and it enables copying of content. How does this relate to car manufacture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: scarce value.
From the original article: "Why is our dope a Dope? Because he’ll end up footing the bill for someone else’s consumption."
If the purpose of the analogy was to identify flaws in the dope theory by testing its wider application then it seems a legitimate comparison.
The writer then goes on to give an example: "if a stranger came to us asking to pay for his car, we’d probably be speechless at the sheer audacity of the request."
You complain about Mike's analogy, but not that? Good grief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: scarce value.
BUT: Would I pay $60K for a Mercedes, YES, would I pay $0.99 for a Snoop Dogg song NO. This analogy just does not exist for me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: scarce value.
You neglect to consider that value is subjective and not based solely on scarcity. Given that also seems to be a large mistake of the apparently smart guy who wrote the referenced article, I don't say so to demean you. You cannot objectively compare value in the scenario you suggest.
"BUT: Would I pay $60K for a Mercedes, YES, would I pay $0.99 for a Snoop Dogg song NO. This analogy just does not exist for me!!!"
I wouldn't pay any price for a Mercedes; it has no apparent value for me. However, I would pay $0.99 for a Pomplamoose song because I value the artists and invest in them through buying their music. While you can compare their costs objectively, you cannot do so with their value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Andrew Anderson
AND
you
too
can
learn
how
to make
a paragraph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Andrew Anderson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ownership vs. Instant Gratification
As a person in control of physical goods, in a democratic society you are responsible for the way you distribute and sell your product.
As one of the posters had pointed out in the previous post about his "art gallery" example, people who walk into an art gallery simply look at art, but only a small fraction of them buy the art.
Well let me also mention the idea of quality of product, that depends on the skill of the "producer" of goods, or artwork in this case.
Does it make people who look at art without buying it? "dopes". Or does it make the artist a big dope for his inability to entice the visitors to his art gallery to buy his art because his art is boring and not the visitors?
Art in the young Salvador Dali's galleries was always sold out. Because the art was good, not because people were "no good" or "dopes". You are responsible for any product (or artwork) you put out there, and you are, as a producer of value or artist is responsible for its QUALITY. Now, that sometimes has something to do with being talented, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Be a Big Dope.
Well it's time for those people to be deprogrammed: Don't be dopes, don't finance those who would destroy you. Spend your money wisely: Buy scarce goods and services (original artwork, performances, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the response to this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the response to this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spending patterns
Spending Less Becoming New Norm for Many Americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spending patterns
I spent a weekend with a friend who is relatively well placed in the music industry, having played on The Tonight Show several times, along with performances at the White House. They told me about several well-established services that exist that do this on a B2B basis.
However, such services don't yet exist for end-users, because it's hard to believe a market exists or the effort would be economically viable for creatives or end consumers alike. However, if your in a situation where you can afford to buy royalties, you probably know these services exist and are perhaps are already a member of them.
"Musos" would be happy to invite you to the First Annual CwF-(RtB) "Trollin' Time!" party if you so desired. But remember- Mike's not invited because it would conflict with obligations pertaining to management of a certain Vaudevillian Blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spending patterns
Do you mean services that place songs on TV, movies, and in commercials? If so, yes, I am very familiar with them. Competitive pricing is driving the down what the artists are getting for those, too. So many artists want the exposure from those placements that music supervisors don't have to pay as much money for licensing as they did in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accept it at face value for what it is.
"Copyright has nothing to do with respecting, honoring or valuing the works of anyone."
- Mike Masnick, Jan 25, 2010
Context (source):
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100125/0539377890.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accept it at face value for what it is.
Silly me.
I guess, someone else actually wrote that. :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Accept it at face value for what it is.
"Copyright has nothing to do with respecting, honoring or valuing the works of anyone."
- Mike Masnick, Jan 25, 2010
Context (source):
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100125/0539377890.shtml
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh, it's changed attribution now.
Silly me.
I guess, someone else actually wrote that. :-P
Right quote, wrong source, and (of course) totally out of context:
Actual link to where I said it, since you seem to falsely be implying I change attribution (the link you put above is someone trying to mock me for the original statement by taking it out of context):
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100118/0300547791#c3494
And the full explanation here:
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100118/0300547791#c3614
It is entirely true that copyright has nothing to with respecting, honoring or valuing the works of anyone. It is designed to serve one purpose and one purpose alone: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts (really, science, since patents were for the useful arts). It was designed for the *public good* not for the rights of the creators. Implying otherwise is trying to rewrite history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accept it at face value for what it is.
"Copyright has nothing to do with respecting, honoring or valuing the works of anyone."
- Mike Masnick, Jan 25, 2010
That's a pretty bland statement of well known fact. So how does it qualify for a "quote of the month" in your little mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I used to buy CDs from bands at shows on the assumption I might not have another opportunity. Or I would buy CDs from Target when they were offered on sale at $7.99 to $9.99. But now that I can pretty much listen to whatever I want whenever I want online, there's no real reason to grab any music.
And that money I might have spent on CDs isn't going into T-shirts and other merchandise. I don't really want more stuff, so I try to keep my spending down.
If my entertainment dollar is going anywhere these days, it is for Internet connectivity. I'm spending more for my connection than I was in the past. So I'm consuming more entertainment and content than ever, but the money is going to companies that provide hardware and connections rather than to the artists.
I'm guessing I am pretty typical. I do know people who go see live music every weekend. But I know a lot more people who stay home and watch their TVs and subscribe to Netflix. Anyone I know who has little kids at home isn't going out much.
There is more stuff to watch, listen to, and read online that I have time to do so. It's all free. Where do I spend my money? Health insurance. Fuel. Food. Car insurance. That sort of thing. Want to give me a reason to buy? Lower my costs on those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More cutbacks
(Even) Pet Supplies Slowed In 2009
It's relevant to this discussion because many people highly value their pets and get a great deal of emotional (and social) rewards in having them. Not unlike some of the motivation in financially supporting musicians. The recession has taken its toll on non-essential spending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dope rule is nothing new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?abstract_id=953587
We are all dopes, if one want to call it that. We all finance something that other don't, we all work more then others and any manager knows that as one of the first things anybody learn administering others is how to diminish the impact of that perception on the work place, it is the most common cause of workplace disagreements because people look at how others work and not at what their are doing and it is being used by the fellow to stir controversy, when there is none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music and scarcity
People willingly make music and give it away for free.
People will play live shows for free (and even go so far as to pay the venue to let them play).
People will be your best friend for free, so the idea that you can charge them for access to you only works when you have enough followers to have tiered access.
Virtually anything that one musician is offering for sale, I can find the equivalent, just as good or better, for free or less.
That's the point I have been trying to make. Music is something people like to do. So the economics of making music aren't the same as some other careers because there are so many people who will give all their music and everything associated with it away for free.
In order to have scarcity, you have to convince your potential customers that what you offer is unique and can't be obtained elsewhere. But with the endless opportunities online, you can comparison shop and probably find the equivalent for less or free somewhere.
Now live shows are location specific, so you've got some control over the fact that you aren't competing with live music in other locations. But even within a specific city, on any given night, you'll find multiple places to go hear live music. And quality isn't always directly tied to price.
Now, given the above, why do some people pay $200 a ticket to hear one band and only $5 to hear another? I don't think it has all that much to do with musical quality. We've all seen crap artists getting high prices for their tickets, but people go because the artists are famous or relatively famous. The fans go in order to say they went. In those cases you are selling access to fame more than access to the music.
So fame still sells. And to get famous, it helps to be on Disney or have a major label promote the hell out of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music and scarcity
Now that we have home recording and the Internet, there are few limitations to recording and distributing music.
Now that we have Auto-Tune, you don't have be able to sing on key to record.
Now that we have looping, you don't need a band behind you.
Now we are seeing tools allowing you to pretty much create music out of thin air on your computer or your iPhone.
So we are getting an explosion of music. Some of it is very good. Some of it is terrible. But we have lots of people making music. And lots of people putting it out there.
There are perhaps scarcities in filtering the music to screen out the crap, but that scarcity benefits the creator of the filter rather than the creator of the music.
The economics of music are changing. While the labels are gone, there is more music than ever and finding an audience big enough to support you is a challenge since you are up against millions of other people trying to do the same thing. And there isn't necessarily a correlation between musical quality and success. Some mediocre musicians are doing well, some talented musicians aren't. In many cases who does well and who doesn't has more to do with marketing than musical skill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Music itself already isn't scarce. But people are.
You seem to keep confusing this.
So we are getting an explosion of music. Some of it is very good. Some of it is terrible. But we have lots of people making music. And lots of people putting it out there.
Yes, but you seem to skip over the difference between good and bad. Good musicians are always in demand.
And there isn't necessarily a correlation between musical quality and success. Some mediocre musicians are doing well, some talented musicians aren't. In many cases who does well and who doesn't has more to do with marketing than musical skill.
Um. I'm sorry, but it's *always* been that way. But if you have a good musician, today that musician has MORE OPPORTUNITY to succeed, because the marketing efforts no longer are limited to just a handful of giant companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music and scarcity
You keep saying that, and it's wrong. I mean, it's so wrong that it makes me wonder what industry you're looking at.
We've discussed this before, so I don't know why you keep insisting that there are "little to no" scarcities. The more music that's created the more scarcity is created.
People willingly make music and give it away for free.
Which increases demand for scarcities such as access, authenticity, attention and convenience.
People will play live shows for free (and even go so far as to pay the venue to let them play).
Which increases demand for scarcities like attention and access.
People will be your best friend for free, so the idea that you can charge them for access to you only works when you have enough followers to have tiered access.
You're doing it wrong, Suzanne. We're not talking about "best friends" here.
Virtually anything that one musician is offering for sale, I can find the equivalent, just as good or better, for free or less.
Really? I'm sorry, but you're lying. Or you just don't like music very much. I've given hundreds of dollars in the last few months to my favorite bands, because you CANNOT just replace the scarcities they provide.
People who are fans of Trent Reznor don't want to go see some copycat band. People who are fans of Amanda Palmer don't want the wine bottle someone else drank out of.
Perhaps the musicians you're dealing with are unoriginal and suck, but that's the problem. Not the economics.
In order to have scarcity, you have to convince your potential customers that what you offer is unique and can't be obtained elsewhere. But with the endless opportunities online, you can comparison shop and probably find the equivalent for less or free somewhere.
In other words, the musicians you like/work with suck. Find better musicians. You can't replace the good ones.
I really don't understand where you come from, Suzanne. You make these claims that seem to have nothing at all to do with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music and scarcity
I've lived in Colorado for a long time. We are having an absolute explosion of talent here. Aside from the fact that we are having four or five bands a year getting signed to major label deals, we have at least 50-200 talented bands with national potential, and many more who have devoted local fans. Every Friday and Saturday night there are must-see shows in the venues around town.
Maybe the problem is where you live.
Presumably SXSW attracts talent. So you have about 2000 bands playing there every year in official showcases. Then you have a ton of other bands who play there in day show cases.
Think of that. One festival, 2000 bands.
Denver has its own versions of SXSW. We have at least three festivals featuring quality local bands. There's the Westword Showcase. The Denver Underground Music Showcase. The FoCo Music showcase. Each of those festivals has 200 local bands. All of them good to great bands.
Move to Denver or Boulder or Northern Colorado if you want to see a wealth of talent. It's truly amazing what is happening here. You want to double check with people other than myself. I'll give you the names of local music editors who will tell you the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Musically Colorado is booming. There's a lot happening here. Talent doesn't happen to be scarce here right now. It's everywhere. And it's great fun to be part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Maybe the problem is where you live.
Huh?!? I'm really confused. There is tremendous talent here, and in plenty of other places. And that's kind of the point. Why are you still insisting that those bands don't have any scarcities? People want to support the best bands, and while I've been finding a ton of wonderful new bands to support, it doesn't take away any of their scarcities.
I can't replace the opportunity to see my favorite band with some other band. Those aren't substitutes.
You were saying that there are no scarcities, and that's only true if the bands aren't very good and are easily substituted for one another, which is why I thought you were implying the music acts by you must suck. But now you're saying they're good? So what's the problem? They've got tons of scarcities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Most people don't have just a couple of favorite bands. So there are interchanges. If you want to go out, you'll find someone to go see. It happens all the time. If you have 10 great venues in your town and all of them have great acts, you have a choice.
If you want music by your favorite bands, you can get it for free. And if you have their music, you don't necessarily need to have a t-shirt, or a limited edition package, etc.
If you want to find a community online, not only can you bond with bands and their fans, you can also bond with thousands of other kinds of communities. Maybe it's more fun to hang out on the sports forums than on the music forums.
There are pretty much multiple options for everything a band can offer -- community, collectibles, music, etc. People do like music by specific bands. They get it via streaming and downloads. They do not necessarily go any further than that.
If I have a limited amount of money and I like to snowboard, I like to travel, I like the latest clothes, and I like great restaurants, I have various ways to spend my money. So maybe I get the music for free and spend my money on a trip to Aspen.
Even with people, there aren't scarcities. If there were, people wouldn't get divorced. Maybe you decide the relationship you have right now doesn't work, but you don't mind giving it up because you know you'll find someone else.
With the Internet, and freedom to move from one place to another, and a certain level of affluence, there's a lot of choice at all levels. We live in a world of options these days.
I think like a marketing person. So for any given item or service that you offer, I will think of ways to counter it with something else. If you have a need or want, I'll look for multiple ways to fill it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Really? The research I've seen suggests otherwise.
If you want to go out, you'll find someone to go see. It happens all the time. If you have 10 great venues in your town and all of them have great acts, you have a choice.
Again, you falsely assume these are all interchangeable. They are not, or (again) you really aren't much of a fan of music.
I'm sorry, but there are bands/singers that I will always support because they offer up much more that makes it worthwhile. It bothers me that you seem to be telling musicians not to do this, because you are failing them as a marketer.
If I have a limited amount of money and I like to snowboard, I like to travel, I like the latest clothes, and I like great restaurants, I have various ways to spend my money. So maybe I get the music for free and spend my money on a trip to Aspen.
Indeed, and yet the studies keep showing that people still spend the same amount of money on music related things as they did in the past.
I really still can't figure you out. I honestly can't believe any musicians work with you for marketing advice, because you advice seems to be "don't do anything, you'll never compete." It's scary.
Most people -- contrary to your claims -- do have favorite musicians, and they do value the scarcities that those musicians produce. I'm sorry that you seem to not have those types of musicians in your life. But don't make assumptions based on your situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Really? The research I've seen suggests otherwise.
Do you have it? I can use it. It will be good for market projections. If the average fan only supports two or three band, then we can better understand how big the market is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
Is this over a lifetime? Would this mean that if you don't hook someone in their teens, you've lost them for good?
Or if they don't remain loyal to just a couple of bands, how often do they change loyalties? How long is the average lifespan of fandom? Does the average fan like three bands now and then drop them and find three different bands a few years later? If so, how do they find new bands and why do they lose interest in the old ones?
Definitely point me in the direction of this research. I can use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music and scarcity
There are a whole group of people who are making tech tools to allow everyone to create music. And there are others who believe everyone, not just the elite, can and should be artists.
My ideas are very much in keeping with what is happening today. Lots of people can make music. And the more music we have, the smaller the audiences for each music creator. It's a world of niches taken to its ultimate end. Everyone makes music. No one has to buy it.
It's a very populist view of arts, creativity, and music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheap, not Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The psychology of music fandom
Whether we will pay extra for anything above free music depends on perceived value to us.
Let's say a guy always goes to see band X. Technically he is a fan of band X. But let's say the real reason he goes is that band X attracts hot chicks in the audience. So if you give him a better way to hang out with hot chicks, he will probably do it.
Let's say a teen wears a t-shirt that he purchased from band Y on the Warped Tour. Technically he is a fan of the band. But let's say that the real reason he's wearing the t-shirt is to impress his friends. If you provide him with better ways to impress his friends, he will probably do that instead.
Let's say a guy has a massive fixation on pretty girl singer Z. His room is a shrine to her. Technically he is a fan of hers. But let's say that he's lonely and this is one way for him to connect to something/someone. If you provide him with a group of friends who invite him to parties and do stuff with them, he may be a bit less obsessive over the singer.
Once you have moved beyond getting music itself, then you start tapping into various psychological motivations that in many cases can be met in various ways.
The self-actualize person may turn out to be someone who is fully creative (not just listening to music but creating it and sharing it), with rewarding relationships, who isn't all that into consumption. Fandom fulfills needs, but many of those needs can be fulfilled in other ways as well. So the ultimate music experience may turn out to be hanging out with friends, playing music that you have created as a group. And since it has been argued on Techdirt that a lot of music is just a variation on what has been created in the past and should be available to everyone for free, then average people, given the right tools, should have the ability to create wonderful music themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A potential scenario
In each town I invite people to meet in public spaces to dance and play music. It's free and open to everyone and becomes a great success. It becomes one of the most popular forms of live entertainment.
We set up workshops during the community music festivals where everyone makes their own t-shirts. Everyone gets so inspired with what they have created themselves that we set up a new fashion trend.
We give everyone the tools and opportunities to do what they have traditionally expected from others. They meet new friends, save money, and feel creative.
Every time someone comes up with an interesting idea, we find ways to spread it to everyone, so they can all do it themselves.
This is the Techdirt way, yes? At every opportunity we look for ways to minimize scarcity. Give everyone the tools to do it for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]