Sub Pop Leaning Towards Giving Away The Infinite And Charging For The Scarce
from the good-for-them! dept
If you like good music, you're almost certainly aware of the iconic indie label Sub Pop. Apparently, Sub Pop's creative juices aren't just focused on putting out great music these days, but they're considering how to adapt their business model to the changing music landscape, and I'm happy to see that they seem to have realized the key point that I've been making for years: infinite goods make scarce goods more valuable, so free the infinite and sell the scarce. Sub Pop is apparently considering starting to give away new music, while focusing on selling tangible goods related to the music (found via Hypebot):"Although Sub Pop is primarily known for its many fine artists and their really very fine recordings (also grunge), we're not at all opposed to expanding into the fine world of t-shirts, hats, beer cozies, and key chains," Jaspers says. "We used to give many of these tchotchke items away for free in an effort to entice people to pay for the music, but we're considering flipping our strategy so that people pay for the toy and receive the music for free. Just a thought."Basically, it's a recognition that people want the music, but they're also willing to pay for a physical good as something of a "souvenir" or additional scarce and valuable "art" that is made more valuable by the connection to the music. Sub Pop's art director, Jeff Kleinsmith, is apparently looking to go in creative directions with this:
Regardless of age, there's always going to be people who prefer to touch and make stuff that's like, physical. CDs may end up being little books. We've talked about this at work, where you might spend the time to do a cool package, it just doesn't have a disc in it. And instead of a disc, you've got a little piece of paper that says "go here for your download." So you're getting everything about it except for that plastic disc, you know. I would love to see that.Of course, we've seen some examples of this already. Earlier this year, we talked about a Swedish band that was releasing its latest album as a magazine. Last year, Mos Def tried releasing his latest album as a t-shirt with a download code. And, we just wrote about Kristin Hersh's latest album being released as a book. The idea, of course, is to give fans a real reason to buy beyond just the music -- which is effectively free for many people. But providing scarce value can really do amazing things.
And that could be a magazine, it could be a shirt, it could be a sticker on a banana, it could be anything, really, that has that download. It could be a poster, a thing associated with this music.
Of course, considering it sounds like the Sub Pop folks are still thinking about this, they might want to consider that selling scarcities can also expand a bit beyond just selling tangible goods. There are intangible scarcities that go well with music as well -- including things like access and attention. Either way, it's great to see such an iconic label realizing that there could be serious value in embracing (rather than complaining) about "free" within a business model, and looking at opportunities to use it to their own advantage.
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, free, infinite, music, scarce
Companies: sub pop
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just forestalls the inevitable.
This is basically a 360 deal where the music is given away but the record company makes money from everything else. Kind of like an interest-only mortgage.
It's an interesting idea but ultimately dumb and pointless. If I'm an artist, why would I want to sign with a "label" like this at all? Maybe to get some exposure for a couple of years, after which I hire some 25-year-old to do it all myself on Zazzle and keep more of the money. An organization that does this has no future.
Read the Epilogue to Fred Goodman's new book "Fortune's Fool." He explains the futility of this strategy better than I can here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just forestalls the inevitable.
No. This is not like a 360 deal at all. You are confused.
The deals we're talking about aren't ones where the label gets to demand a cut of all revenue -- but ones where the label specifically adds additional value and gets a cut of *that* revenue, which seems fair.
It's an important difference.
360 deals are a joke -- we agree. But a record label exploring other revenue options does not automatically mean a 360 deal.
It's an interesting idea but ultimately dumb and pointless. If I'm an artist, why would I want to sign with a "label" like this at all? Maybe to get some exposure for a couple of years, after which I hire some 25-year-old to do it all myself on Zazzle and keep more of the money. An organization that does this has no future.
If you really think we're talking about doing what can be on Zazzle, you're not paying attention.
When did Zazzle start selling bananas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: just forestalls the inevitable.
The deals we're talking about aren't ones where the label gets to demand a cut of all revenue -- but ones where the label specifically adds additional value and gets a cut of *that* revenue, which seems fair."
No. If you talk to a major record company person (or read Goodman's book), you will find that the 360 deal as you describe it is a precursor to what the record companies really want to set up is what Sub Pop is contemplating... plus actually selling the music for money.
Zazzle is a useful shorthand here. Zazzle will put logos on pretty much anything (no, I don't know for sure whether they do fruit). Now let's break down your other examples:
- Magazines. This is like selling advertisements, except more expensive and time-consuming to produce - a loser.
- Access and attention: what exactly are we talking about here that a record label could sell? Spotify and Rhapsody sell "access." Beyond that, if I'm an artist and I (following Kevin Kelley's 1000 True Fans model) want to offer $5000 personal in-home performances or $100 personal phone calls, why should I give a piece of that to the record company? What a record company should be doing is developing and promoting artists.
Let's put it this way (and see the next comment, who gets this argument right): in Sub Pop's case, they ought to be licensing music to clothing companies, who give you an iTunes download code for (OK, I'm going to sound dated) the latest Alice in Chains album when you buy a grungewear shirt. Just like the Prince model with that UK newspaper, which I thought was pretty smart. This model has it backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course you could just eliminate the music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
How insulting.
They're not selling "toys." They're selling something complementary to the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
Sub Pop's Considering Selling Band Merch and Giving the Music Away For Free - Seattle Music - Reverb: "Today, Sub Pop's general manager, Megan Jasper, sent us a statement with more on the ideas that are swirling around the label's offices.
'Although Sub Pop is primarily known for its many fine artists and their really very fine recordings (also grunge), we're not at all opposed to expanding into the fine world of t-shirts, hats, beer cozies, and key chains,' Jaspers says.'We used to give many of these tchotchke items away for free in an effort to entice people to pay for the music, but we're considering flipping our strategy so that people pay for the toy and receive the music for free. Just a thought.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
But I digress. The reason for not eliminating the music is that it makes the "toys" more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
Or, for that matter, if the music is just the exposure vehicle, perhaps you can have the musicians donate the music, and then Sub Pop sells the toys. That's how some retailers do it. They get the music for free to enhance the sales of their own merchandise. They are retailers of merchandise and the music is given to them to gain exposure to the retailers' audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course you could just eliminate the music
Again, why do labels put music on those blank plastic discs they sell. According to you, they're just selling plastic discs, and so they're not in the music business at all. The plastic discs will just sell themselves.
Get the point? It's the music that sells the plastic discs, and it's the music that sells these other items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grunge Speak Anyone?
I kind of suspect this is more of an indictment against the models proposed at sites like TD. I'm not sure, though, we'll have to see if Jaspers clears this up at all. As for now, I'd put my money on the guess that Sub Pop is being ridiculous and we're just falling for the joke.
But then again, this is a label whose biggest selling commodity was a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan "LOSER" until 1990 when they "sold" their contract with Nirvana (not sure if "sold" is the right term, but you know what I mean). They also started out on a non-traditional subscription basis, so the label does historically know how to make money on ancillary product.
Of course, this was all when the label was run by Bruce Pavitt and Jonathan Poneman, who were pretty out there characters. I'm not sure what the current corporate structure of Sub Pop is like.
Not that the idea here is unsound. But I learned a long time ago not to trust anything that comes out of Sub Pop's offices:
Sub Pop on 'Grunge Speak'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
Nice to see that she's still with the label! I believe she started as an intern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
Now I'm not so young. Ideals are one thing, but broken guitars, amps, pedals, turntables, and records, etc that have to be repaired or repurchased before you can play out again are a hard, expensive reality. (2 things that are often overlooked when speculating on how a band can make money: 1) Playing shows often costs money. I generally have to cart 3 turntables, a sampler, a guitar, and many effects pedals to play a show. I don't own a car in NYC, so it usually takes 2 cab rides to move everything (4 total, to get everything home), which pretty much blows right through any money we make at the door or selling merch. And 2) why doesn't anyone factor "looks" into these equations? That is STILL the single most important aspect of succeeding as a musician. If you're not cute, you'll be hard pressed to just "end up" with a video on Youtube. Sad but true.)
Technically isn't this just Mattel's strategy from the 80s (and probably before)? I mean, I could watch Transformers and G.I. Joe for free every afternoon (they even came with catchy songs!), but the focus was the toys being sold. In fact, I remember Transformers: The Movie (1986) specifically being indicted as "an hour and a half long toy commercial."
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm not at all opposed to TD's message of giving away your music. It's precisely what my band has always done, except for a brief flirtation with the music industry when we were set up with managers and handlers who ABSOLUTELY would not work with us if we were just giving stuff away. THANKFULLY, we spent 10 years recording our own music on our own dimes, possessed ALL the rights and were able to walk away unscathed when we decided that we actually liked it under our rock and would rather play for friends of friends of friends at house parties. (what's the apropos Sub Pop song that fits here? I think it goes "Come and join us 'cause it's lonely underground...") We don't make a lot of money, but we never would have. And our music is so copyright infringent that we wouldn't have been allowed to even *record* an album before the advent of cheap digital audio programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
An even earlier cultural reference: Steal This Book
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
Ah yes. And the record labels are in the plastic disc business. They should stop putting music on them, because that's not what they're selling, right?
They should just sell blank plastic discs, according to Suzanne...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grunge Speak Anyone?
Hasn't that been the confusion? Some people thought they were in the plastic disc selling business. Now that they have figured out they aren't in the plastic disc business, some of them have eliminated those. And if they are now giving away the music, they aren't in the music selling business anymore either.
You have to figure out what people are really paying you for to know what to sell.
For those who aren't familiar with this classic article, I'll point you to this:
Marketing Myopia - Article in HBR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]