Labels Saying They Don't Want To Deal With Artists Who Won't Make The Effort To Connect
from the get-busy-connecting dept
When we talk about why content creators need to connect with fans, we always have naysayers pop up to say that this is a waste of their time, and content creators should just focus on making content -- and that if they have to use Facebook or Twitter, it's a huge time waster. Back in December, we discussed how this was misleading, quoting some artists who were saying that (1) it's not that hard and (2) not doing so is "selling yourself short," because you're not building up your audience.It looks like record labels are beginning to recognize this, as apparently some labels have started turning down musicians who say they're not interested in using social media to help build their audience. While you can understand why some artists might not like using the tools, what they're basically telling the label is that they're going to be a deadweight on the marketing side, and won't help out at all. That makes the job of the record labels much more difficult, and makes that musician much more of a liability.
Of course, some of the problem is that some musicians seem to think that using social media means they have to "reveal everything" or "put themselves out there." Nothing is further from the truth. Certainly, some musicians do that -- but plenty have found a much more reserved way to use the tools. They don't have to tweet every day or share intimate details. They can still be authentic, without going overboard. I follow a band on Twitter that probably only tweets one message every other week or so, and that's plenty for that particular band. But it does keep me connected to them, and what they're up to generally.
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: connect with fans, social networking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
HA don't want to work = no contract no pay
but its a far cry from once you learn how to do it needing a label at all....now isn't that a kick in the face both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd...
Connecting directly with fans has long been a staple of authors, particularly fiction writers. Author boards, appearances, speaking engagements, etc.
I've spent the last couple of minutes trying to figure out a logical explanation for what that is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Odd...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Odd...
Most books, fiction or not, have lessons and/or themes buried within them. The way good fiction is left for the reader to interpret, hearing directly from the author what he/she intended just makes sense.
I'm not sure the same is quite true with music, particularly pop music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And other resources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And other resources
Seriously, stop plugging your site. Here's the thing about Techdirt: if you have an interesting, useful or unique site, and you mention it in a comment on a post where it is actually relevant and contributes to the discussion, you'll do great. Nobody will mind - in fact they will check out your site and offer you feedback and pass it on to their friends if they like it. Music entrepreneurs regularly drop by these comments to talk about their projects. It's awesome!
You're not awesome. You're shoehorning a plug for your site into every post on the site. Do you think we are stupid? Do you think it is helping your Google ranking? More importantly... Do you think your website is actually interesting? Because I can barely even figure out what you are trying to do. It seems like Villa is an attempt to skim some profit out of the confusion over digital music rights without actually offering any genuinely useful services or products whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong (and also build a more communicative website)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And other resources
Yeah, seriously....it's like some kind of massive conspiracy that someone should write about! Where can you find great conspiracy fiction? My site! Click my name....please, just click it.....
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And other resources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And other resources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And other resources
You can rationalize it all you want, but it's fairly obvious that your only goal here is to drive traffic to your website in the hopes of growing your business. You aren't calling attention to an issue - Techdirt is, and has been for awhile. You are trying to call attention to your particular solution for it - a solution that presumably profits you, and that doesn't make a lot of sense as far as I can see.
Let's take a look at your FAQ. I especially like this:
"VillaMusicRights receives for the cost of displaying, advising and transactions a percentage of the profits, namely 25% with a minimum of € 0,0625 per song. This amount is also due if the songs are offered for free to business users."
Twenty-five per cent. Nice. Plus a minimum payout even if the creator chooses to give stuff away for free. Meaning you want creators to keep control of their rights, but also enter into a binding contract with you whereby they have to pay you every time they distribute their songs, no matter what?
Your site keeps talking about "business" and "personal" use. How do you plan to distinguish between these things? One of the biggest issues of copyright and the internet is that the lines between business and personal are getting blurrier every day. See this Techdirt post for more on that.
Of course since you assert that "copyright law itself is not that complex" I can see how you might have missed such a serious flaw in your business plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And other resources
"5.4. Users are not authorized to change or abridge musical works in any way without the written consent of the author."
Way to steamroll over fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heard that before so many times and it always turns out to be a completely useless devise that got it all backwards.
Show me a company that has signed licensing deal with a least ONE major movie studio that allows it to provide movies DRM-free the same night that it premiers in theaters, then I might believe it actually might be the next thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
wow, sounds great, i found a great system that let's me see movies *before* they are in the theaters, it's called bit torrent.
but that's not all all, you'll also get dvd releases 6 weeks ahead of retail absolutely free!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get it do they" variety. We very much do get it.
We are glad to see the demise of the old industry, it was a lottery and was based squarely on ripping
off both artists and fans.
We don't believe in the copyright laws, and we don't believe in criminalising fans or anyone else
for filesharing.
We don't believe that any artist can sit back and wait for others to get the ball rolling for them, they
can no longer just "focus on my music man" - those days are gone.
We are in favour of CwF + RtB and indeed have begun to use the theory. However we had to get to
a certain position in order to make it workable. You have to CwF first obviously and how that is achieved
is different for every artist and genre in question - and necessitiates a wide variety of approaches and funding.
We did it by financing ourselves for a considerable period, playing live, often promoting our own shows
and releasing our own recordings. So we don't just deal in theory, we deal in practicalities.
We could afford to do this because for years we have run our own business in London (not a place known for cheap
rents and rampant communism) so we are quite aware of basic economics. We are also free to operate without
the need to worry about a boss sacking us if we take too much time off. We have now secured several 5th
Beatles to help us in different areas with our future endeavours. We are also remaining independent.
We are a duo but the third member of our band is an artist - who thanks to the internet isn't even based in
the same country as we are. We therefore have never had to pay for any artworks. However this person was
a friend first - and was willing to work for free.
Any 5th Beatle worth their salt is going to have to be paid. Sure you can get people to help with the hard
graft of online and other promotion for free - and some of our fans will do this. But the one thing you need in
this business is contacts. No one will willingly share their hard won experience and contacts with a project
that hasn't already proven its worth in some way. In much the same way that any start up business needs
finance - and even things like "Kickstarter" still seem to be best suited to artists who are some kind of "going
concern".
This entire debate needs to move on and focus on something far more important than labels and what they
DEMAND from artists.
Finance.
On the subject of scarce goods you recently replied:
"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."
So are you saying that the artist who can't (not won't we have already said that is a non-starter) take on
the role of the 5th Beatle themselves, perhaps due to lack of time and money - is now going to be forced
to undertake a new kind of "Devil's Agreement". This time not with their musical works but with their "scarce
goods" as the ransom? Isn't this precisely what the labels are doing with their odious 360 deals? Perhaps
you think that is inevitable and not a problem. We don't share that view.
And this brings us to our central question to you Mike.
Will artists who are poor, now have to either accept that they will never sit at the big table, and will have to remain
amateurs, will their circumstances now dictate the level to which they can aspire. Or will they now have to "meet
the new boss, same as the old boss"? Just what they hand over to a label/manager has changed? Are they in
fact excluded from trying out your theory for themselves by their circumstances, because they can't not won't DIY
for long enough to make it work as independents?
Yes your formula can supply artists with a new way forward, and if they are prepared to work hard and to find all
the pieces of the jigsaw themselves it will work. But it pre-supposes that they have the means to connect with their
fans - and by that we mean the famous "True Fans" - the ones who will gladly buy "scarce goods" the same fans
who will also invest their time and money in helping their favourite artists create more art.
When this is applied to "bands" and those who wish to play live - where the "connection" with fans can often be
at its strongest - the need for finance is even greater than those who record at home and use the internet as their
primary source of promotion. They are blessed, technology is cheap and the only drawback for them is that the
internet is overcrowded with people with the same goal.
So has anything really changed for the artist without finance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The truth is, its always easier to start a business if you have own money to invest in starting it. The less money you got the more unpaid work will be needed before the business takes off.
And if you don't want to do that unpaid work and don't have the money to invest yourself, then you have to use someone else's money. Which means you get yourself some kind of investor and will end up with a boss.
Personally I rather invest my own time and money so I can keep being my own boss. I'm building my third company now. When I stared the first company I owned nothing. I just found a fan and gave them a reason to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Personally I rather invest my own time and money so I can keep being my own boss."
Agreed. Good luck to 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:
"That is a very hard transition for many artists to make."
Yes, which is why they fall back on the "just want to concentrate on my art" line and in some cases don't even want to use social media.
If they want to produce "Art For Arts Sake" fine. If they want to enter the commercial realm with their art then they need to face the fact that they need "Money FFS"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The way you connect with fans has to be consistent with the Art you make. And really just a different side of your creation.
Its the same with the reason to buy, it got to be consistent with the Art. And also just a different side of the creation.
For example if your art consists of visually experimental feature length movies with a very Art For Arts Sake attitude then you have to do like Matthew Barney with his Creemaster movies. You make a couple of high class art gallery owners your fans and then you exhibit your movies in their galleries for a very exclusive selection of rich art collectors (the fans of the art gallery, so you borrow a fanbase from a fan) and sell the movies för $150.000 a piece in a very limited series of numbered and signed DVDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Personally I believe the key concept for an Artist is to start thinking of the business side of creating Art as part of the "Art For Arts Sake" thing."
Yes indeed, that is a very shrewd analysis, and exactly the route we favour. The marketing has to be a part of the overall aesthetic.
"You make a couple of high class art gallery owners your fans and then you exhibit your movies in their galleries for a very exclusive selection of rich art collectors"
Yes a few rich patrons/benefactors has always been a lifeline for certain artforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, labels/publishers/distributors/middlemen can be of huge service IF YOU DON'T GRANT THEM MONOPOLIES.
It's not that an artist can do it all by themselves. It's that the audience can now do what in the past only publishers could do. Everyone with a computer today has the equivalent of a printing press, record factory, and film lab. Within the audience some folks are very, very good at distribution and promotion, and they rightly offer their services - as "middlemen" - professionally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is really the end of the Record Labels ...
Then they ask the artist to ... Find a reason for the fans to buy.
Then they tell the artist they need to find a .. "fifth beatle" to do the financial side.
It ends with the artists asking ... "if I am doing all this myself why do I need the Record Label?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please...this is all about...
If the artist won't do new media promotions themselves (for free of course), the old media conglomerates sure as hell aren't going to hire someone to do it for the artists (unless they can charge them for it & make lots of money, which they probably figure they can't, so they aren't).
As it is you wouldn't want most of the people left at the labels to do old school promotion for you (they ones left are not the clueful competent ones & whatever idiotic campaigns they come up with they're not worth the cost the artists will have to recoup for the labels).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...this is all about...
This is just like when they started sucking out live performance revenue.
Who gets screwed by the industry in the end? The artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What makes labels think artists want to deal with them?
Dear labels, don't call me, I'll call you (not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its Just Another Form of Promotion
If a content creator is not willing to help promote their own works then they need to accept the fact that they are not going to make much, if any, money from it. Musicians go on tour, authors have book signings and readings, movie stars go on the talk show circuit, etc. If you want to make it big you have to put in the effort, and that will never change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]