Measuring Success By Fan Passion, Not Billboard Chart Position
from the that's-how-it's-done dept
Kyle Bylin, over at Hypebot, has an excellent interview with Yan, the manager of the hip hop band Jedi Mind Trick, where he talks about how the band has embraced the internet to become much more successful. The interview is chock full of the type of thing we write about here. For example, on the band's response to "file sharing":For JMT, it has been more of a blessing. Yeah, they've lost sales to illegal file sharing just like everyone else, but the efficiency of those file sharing networks has allowed their music to spread across the world in a way that the physical distribution network never achieved.This highlights a really important point that many of the critics to these ideas often miss. They seem to assume a zero sum world, where those who embrace the free distribution of their work are automatically "giving up" sales. But what JMT has discovered is that by accepting this, they've build a huge fanbase in places where it wouldn't have been possible before. As Yan notes later in the interview:
Those file-sharing networks are definitely part of the reason why JMT can play a show in front of 2,000 kids in Bogota, Colombia or to a similarly-sized crowd in Bucharest, Romania. They may have lost sales, but they have gained new throngs of fans by playing live in places that their music may have never reached without the Internet. With the improvements in digital distribution, the hope is that file sharers will become supporters.
Over the 14 years of their career, the Internet enabled them to take what started as a passionate fan base in say Philly, NYC, Boston, and maybe a few other major cities like Los Angeles and grow that fan base across the world.Yan also shows how the band realized early on that the market had changed and (unlike some others) quickly figured out how to use that changing market to their own advantage:
Without the Internet, they may have been relegated to a regional phenomenon or maybe a group that plays 10-15 shows a year in major markets. With the help of the Internet, they've grown from a regional niche into a worldwide niche with a worldwide fan base. They're 14 years into their career and there are still cities that they haven't played where there is a demand to see them play, so they're very fortunate in that respect.
The internet created an opportunity for them to have their music distributed across the world in a way that physical distribution hadn't achieved. They recognized that opportunity and seized it by developing their worldwide touring business. In the early years, they took low guarantees to go play for their fans; they were confident that they would draw a crowd and get invited back. Now, those tour dates are the anchor of their business. Between the creative accounting of labels and depleting sales, they knew that they had to develop their touring business if they hoped to carve out a sustainable career. Ironically, in this digital age, artists are looking to the analog experience of playing a show to a crowd of actual human beings as the cornerstone of their businesses.Furthermore, Yan talks about the importance of connecting with fans, and notes how that's more important in the long run than how many albums are sold -- in part because they know that they will get support via other means:
The rise of the social networks has been a great asset for JMT as well. Those networks have created unprecedented access for fans to artists and vice versa. Our business is a customer service business; we care about how the fans feel about the music. We're always looking for new ways to interact with the fans, because the fans' reactions to what JMT is doing musically are a better barometer of their success than SoundScan numbers. For a long time now, we've chosen to measure their success in the fans' passion for the music rather than Billboard chart positions.Not only that, but Yan also demonstrates how fans like supporting the indie bands and artists that they find. We've been hearing from some lately, who claim that no musician will be able to make money in the future because there will just be too much competition. But that assumes, incorrectly, that fans don't want to support bands -- they just need a good reason to buy:
It seems like human nature to root for the underdog. Fans of independent music are typically a different breed of music fan, because they generally have to work to discover you and they're actively seeking out music rather than waiting for it to be spoon-fed to them through traditional radio, TV, etc. outlets, so when they discover you they wear it like a badge of honor. JMT has fans that send them pictures of themselves with tattoos of JMT's logo or lyrics -- they're literally wearing the music as a permanent badge of honor. That type of passion isn't measured by a Billboard chart, but we're fine with that. We've built a business model that exists outside the gates of that hierarchy.Great interview by Kyle, and it's great to see yet another band that has this all figured out. In fact, they've got it so figured out that they've set up an artist management business to help other artists do the same thing as well.
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: jedi mind trick, metrics, music industry
Companies: hypebot
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:"" .... and "lessons from the mouths of babes" ...
You make a very important point there. Business is about adapting to changing circumstances and adapting. The problem is that in this instance the record labels arent adapting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:"" .... and "lessons from the mouths of babes" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:"" .... and "lessons from the mouths of babes" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where / how did you obtain these super powers and why did you chose to use them for evil rather than good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
One data point proves an opinion to be correct.
Nice.
You did not do well in science class did you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
There are things one can do to broaden the mind. It is not easy, and should not be undetaken by the light hearted. I find reading the opinions of others to be quite enlightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
This is about business successes. And yes, Snakes on a Plane was a business success. Not as successful as some marketing hacks thought it would be, but far more successful than any other movie of the same quality.
Apparently you don't think making a good cash return on your investment and work isn't success, but hopefully your mind will change once you actually have to start earning a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
If the Snakes on a Plane production focused more on the meme and less on the shitty movie, they could have had a much better return on their investment.
If you have plenty of fan passion, but minimal sales, that tells you that the opportunity is still right there, you're just not focusing on the right areas. Billboard charts will tell you one thing and one thing only: how many people want your shiny discs for that one album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane
Nonetheless, it's also a case of not understanding what the fans want. The passion of the fanbase was purely about the meme, and very little to do with the movie. Marketing idiots thought "hey, look at all these fans, we'll be rich!", while in reality it was just internet goof-offs who liked shouting stupid catchphrases and jumping on a bandwagon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, the vast majority of bands who used the label system came out of is owing money on their advance, i.e., earning less than no money. So any internet band which is earning money is automatically doing better that the vast majority of label bands. They're not going to come out of it in debt.
Second, the bands that did win in the label the Beatles, U2, the Rolling Stones, are very fricken rare. You can't really compare the average band who might have a life expectancy of five years to such bands. It'd be like comparing an hourly worker with those few people who win lotteries. Random anomalies cannot be the standard against which success is measured.
No, the standard against which internet bands must be measured would be bands prior to the computer revolution who did not use the internet. If you wanted to be a success without a label pre-internet, you'd have to tour. All the fricken time. That's what Bob Seger sang about in Turn the Page.
There was simply no other means of getting your music out there. Radio would not play you unless you had a major label deal and every other radio station played your music.
Music magazines would not write about you unless you had a major label deal.
You could not burn a bunch of your CDs and hand/mail them out. You'd have to make cassettes which were a lot more expensive and time consuming.
There was simply no way to print your fancy labels for your cassettes.
You couldn't use your own PC as a studio, you'd have to go to a very expensive studio and pay by the hour.
So the best you could do to get your music out to potential fans was to drive from city to city playing gigs. And even then, the best you could hope for, for all that work, was to get signed to a label and not owe a bunch of money after your time is over. There was simply no option to do it on your own. Wow. That's a life worth living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In many respects that hasn't changed. If you are giving your music away for free, then one of the ways you are going to make money is via touring.
I'd like to have more discussions with unsigned bands who have been at this for at least 15 - 20 years. I'm curious whether they are finding it easier or harder now to make a living. There have been several trends over this time:
1. Karaoke and DJs took some venues out of the live music business.
2. The unsigned bands were selling CDs directly to fans all along. So if fans stop buying CDs, it hurts them, too. A successful unsigned band could often sell between 10,000 and 100,000 copies per CD at their shows. When they were able to get $15 per CD, that was a great margin.
3. The Internet and tech tools have encouraged more people to record music, so there are far more people doing it than in the pre-Internet days. And many of those who have recorded a few songs or an album aspire to get gigs, so venues have gotten to the point where they put four bands on a bill now rather than just one or two in the past. A lot more competition for the money that is out there.
The conversations I've had with musicians who have been playing unsigned as far back as the 1970s to the 1990s suggest to me that they aren't finding it easier now. But I haven't polled hundreds of bands to get info. If bands want to weigh in here or elsewhere, I think it would add a lot to the conversation.
Again, I'm looking for bands who have never been signed. How does business compare today to 15-20 years ago? Has your income shifted from one source of revenue to another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=piracy+bill&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&s a=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1980&as_hdate=1999&lnav=hist6
According to Google there never was more protection then today and they still can't make it LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Middlemen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"We sold eight hundred albums! We're the best in the world!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defining Success
It used to be that a contract with a major label was generally considered a necessity because most artists wanted to be able to make a living from their art.
But the artists and many others have learned that they can make a modest living from their art through word of mouth, connecting with fans and other methods that the major corporations view with utter contempt...largely because the corps can't take a huge cut from those methods.
These artists know they are very unlikely to ever get "rockstar rich" but seem perfectly content making a reasonable living doing something they love instead of being stuck in an unfulfilling job to support their music habit.
I say good for them.
As a writer, I view success in that same definition...I will be perfectly happy to earn a modest living on my books. I just want to be able to earn enough that I can keep on writing. Anything more is just bonus. That's something I'm willing to work really hard towards...and because I sell direct to my fans, I can make a reasonable living on a far smaller number of sales than by going through a 40-cent-royalty-per-sale publisher.
These methods provide that means to the creators who have talent and the motivation to find and connect with their fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defining Success
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defining Success
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defining Success
How dare anyone question the immortality of the superstar act!
How dare 100 beer money bands take precious money from customers who want to pay them!
What kind of insanity are you promoting here?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defining Success
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining Success
Except, you know...it is getting bigger, except for the irrelevant plastic disc sector.
But don't let facts bother you. You never do, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining Success
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinds of Authorship, and Economic Models.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/mntsm10.txt
and especially at Chapter II, "LA CHANSON DE ROLAND," in which Adams seeks to locate a great work of literature in its social context, a social context of its audience. Adams' candidate for the part-authorship of the poem is one Taillefer, the Duke of Normandy's minstrel. He finds a source, describing the Battle of Hastings from a distance of only a hundred years, which is not bad for the middle ages:
Taillefer who was famed for song,
Mounted on a charger strong,
Rode on before the Duke, and sang
Of Roland and of Charlemagne,
Oliver and the vassals all
Who fell in fight at Roncesvals.
When they had ridden till they saw
The English battle close before:
"Sire," said Taillefer, "a grace!
I have served you long and well;
All reward you owe me still;
To-day repay me if you please.
For all guerdon I require,
And ask of you in formal prayer,
Grant to me as mine of right
The first blow struck in the fight."
The Duke answered: "I grant."
The story goes that Taillefer was killed in the battle, the common fate of the vanguard. His life-goal, at a certain level, was to become the hero of his own epic. The artist was an expression of the values of his society, in this case, a society ruled by a warrior nobility. A truly great artist was apt to be notable in other ways.
Outside of wartime, that kind of value system is not very common with us now. Our age is one in which men spend years designing intricate devices, of which computer programs are simply the most perfect type. We tend to admire a novelist of the general type of Leo Tolstoy or William Faulkner, who is about one notch away from being a scholar, and whose habits are largely those of a scholar. Such a person can always become a lawyer if he wants. He can become the kind of lawyer who draws up wills and contracts and amicable-divorce papers, and has lots of free time. It is almost a joke-- law school is the disgruntled graduate student's escape hatch. This means that there is a persistent element of economic amateurism in literature. People write and publish things without worrying very much about the money, because they know that they would have to be extremely successful, fantastically successful for the money to amount to more than they get from their usual occupations.
A modern rock star is something different. Aspiring rock stars are all serious money fantasists. No mature adult takes the average rock star very seriously as an artist, or an author, just as no mature adult takes the average rock star as a generally admirable person. The rock star is something rather different. I will tell you another old story, a darker one, this time.
In the primeval past of Northern Europe, say about the time of Christ, and a few thousand years before, there was such a thing as a "year-king." The people chose the most handsome young man as king, and then they worshiped him for a year, without giving him actual power, worshiped him as a fertility god, and then, when the year was over, they hanged him from an oak tree. In some parts of Denmark, where the soil has the right preservative properties, archaeologists have dug up year-kings, with the ropes still around their necks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body
http://www.amazon.com/Bog-People-Preserved-Review-C lassics/dp/1590170903
What the music labels have offered to artists is the promise of becoming a kind of god-king. The labels promise that the artist will be worshiped by hordes of little girls, who will all scream, and get hot flashes, and faint, at the mere sight of him. He is driven around in a huge limousine, and surrounded by flunkies whose job is to insulate him from the common reality, and dressed up in sequined clothing. He is fed all the cocaine he wants, and often enough, he overdoses, or commits suicide. This sort of thing, all duly expensed, and with the usual middleman's markup, naturally consumes whatever money the artist makes, unless he is truly exceptional. But, for as long as the money lasts, he is a god-king, of sorts. At a certain level, it is considered fitting that a rock star should go the suicide-overdose route, rather than bump down to earth again. Such is the fate of a year-king.
Of course, with the declining fortunes of the recording industry, it will be forced to take the next step. Someone like Janis Joplin, who ended it all, is considered a commercially safe icon. With increasing commercial pressure, and increasing desperation, it will no longer be possible to rely on chance or choice. The year king must die, and someone will have to arrange it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinds of Authorship, and Economic Models.
I can't see where you are wrong. Most of the ones that don't out right die, are usually forgotten very quickly; replaced by the next god-king. Of course this only really affects the record label's lackeys. A lot of musicians, including genres like rock, rap, etc, are artists; the ones who try to bend the illusions built up by cookie cutter bands. Those, while maybe not playing in stadiums with 100,00 attendees, are the true artists. They are the one who will be remembered after three hundred years. They will be the Bachs, the Mozarts, the Beethovens of our time.
Not the stupid year-king's of the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TL;DR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're unfamiliar with the music business
Here's something that will give you a sense of it:
Video: The Band vs. The Promoter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fan/Consumer Power
In the interview it was mentioned that JMT always looks for new ways to connect with fans. The fan-artist interaction model will become the GOLD STANDARD of the industry, if it hasn't already. In fact, we have a client here in Nashville that I assure you has plans of launching a new site that does that in a powerful new way. As we are allowed to release further information regarding this new company, we will be leaking it on our facebook, twitter and myspace pages FIRST before ANYTHING gets released to mainstream media, so stay tuned.
Regards,
Benjamin Wade Inman
Managing Partner
ZONG Music Partners LLC
Nashville, TN
Connect with us
http://www.twitter.com/zongmp
http://www.myspace.com/zongmusicpartners
http://www.facebook.com /pages/ZONG-Music-Partners-LLC/254935045208?ref=ts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]