Announcing Step2 -- Our New Platform For Helping Creators Succeed
from the join-in-the-fun dept
Today we're extremely excited to announce the launch of Step2, our discussion platform for helping creators, fans, techies, business folks and anyone else work together to help creators figure out ways to better succeed with their efforts.
In thinking about this, we realized that what's really missing out there is a true community to help people figure this stuff out. There's really no great place for a content creator to ask people how can they better connect with a fan base. There's really no great place out there for an artist to compare different store hosting platforms to see which ones might serve their needs better. There's really no great place out there for someone to figure out just how should they set up this business model/online store/crowdfunding campaign. And there's no great place for fans to reach out and help the creators they love as well with these same sorts of questions.
So we built one.
There's a famous internet meme out there that began with a South Park episode many years ago, which has become known as the "Profit!" meme, which goes something like this:
- Step 1: Do something
- Step 2: ??????
- Step 3: Profit!
So how can Step2 be used? Well, that's partly up to the community to decide! But here are some suggestions:
Content Creators:
- Ask the community how to better succeed -- whether it's to better connect with fans or to come up with unique and compelling business model ideas.
- Discuss challenges or choices you're facing and get feedback. What platforms make sense? Should you focus on touring or build a local fan base? Should you self-publish or try to get a publishing deal? Can you really crowdfund this movie? etc.
- Share your experiences as a case study. To get feedback and to help others learn from and be inspired by your experiences. In a little while we'll be posting about a contest we're launching in conjunction with the Step2 launch, where we're offering up a total of $10,000 to people for sharing their case studies. For a few great examples of case studies, check out:
- Amanda Palmer discussing her recent experiences with Kickstarter in funding a new project in conjunction with her husband, Neil Gaiman.
- Or, check out Andy Richards of the indie band Uniform Motion (whom we've written about a few times), discussing how his transparency about their revenue may have given fans additional reasons to buy, complete with detailed stats about how his transparency resulted in traffic and sales.
- Or you can jump over to Zoe Keating's discussion over the question of whether or not doing art for purely strategic reasons is evil... while she also shares a bit of the secret of her success.
- Share your own case studies as a fan. Show artists how it feels to have an artist treat you well, and highlight cool examples of artists that have connected with you. Inspire more artists.
- Want to help out your favorite artist? Start a discussion about cool things they're already doing and encourage more people to check them out.
- See someone you like who you think could do better? Make some suggestions about ways they could do even better.
- See someone you like doing something you don't like? Maybe present some alternative ideas
- This is a community project. Even if you don't know some of those participating, you'll be amazed at how gratifying it is to try to help people succeed with their work. While I haven't had time to help as many content creators as I would have liked, every time I'm able to spend some time helping artists, it's always been a very rewarding experience.
- Help people recognize that there's a world of opportunity out there, and there are all sorts of great ways to embrace it and to succeed. Talking to folks who succeed today, you almost inevitably hear a variation on the theme that they saw someone else succeeding and were inspired to know that they could do that too.
Special Thanks!:
First off a special thanks to our awesome sponsors for this project, from whom you'll be hearing more as Step2 moves forward. TopSpin provides an amazing platform for content creators to connect with fans and give them a reason to buy. Its platform is used by big name artists like Eminem, Lady Gaga, the Beastie Boys and Paul McCartney, as well as tons of up and coming artists. And it's not just for music. They're powering sites for the likes of filmmaker Kevin Smith and are working with authors as well. We'll be seeing more details and case studies from folks associated with TopSpin in the near future. Then we have the Future of Music Coalition, who has been doing all sorts of wonderful things helping musicians deal with a changing market. Their latest project (again, which you'll be hearing more about) is the massive artist revenue streams project, in which they're gathering data from tons of musicians to better understand all revenue streams for artists these days. SongKick is an amazing new platform that is really doing cool things for the touring industry, and has some amazing insight into that important revenue stream for musicians, which we'll try to delve into on Step2. And last, but certainly not least, is Bandzoogle, a website platform for content creators that makes it easy for creators to build extremely powerful (and profitable) websites. As we recently noted, artists using Bandzoogle are making a lot of money, and we're looking forward to finding out more about how they do that.
Also, a special thanks to the crew here at Floor64 for the hard work in putting all this together and iterating on the original idea and turning it into a reality. Finally (and perhaps most importantly) an extra special thanks for the community of folks out there who have bandied about many of the ideas about how to connect with fans, and how to build cooler, better business models that inspired us to put together this platform.
So go ahead, jump in, join some existing discussions, start some new discussions, and let's help create and document as many success stories as we can.
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, content creation, cwf, cwf+rtb, rtb, step2, success models
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
None of us would know what to do....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Cognitive dissonance run amok, or common troll? You decide!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's neither. He just gets a nice big paycheck from mafiaa and co, so why would he care about the facts or 'getting it'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BULLSHIT!
I don't think Mike hates artists. Where the fuck did you get that from?
I also don't think he wants them to be penniless. Rather, I think he supports an agenda and a point of view that will leave most of them penniless. He wants them to do more for less money, give up more of themselves to earn it, and make that money on the backs of the few willing to pay over the top for certain things unrelated to the artist being an artist (the old "scarce goods" argument).
I also find this whole "new" ideas to be amusing, because it's Mike Masnick working hard to be a middleman (and to profit from it). Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
profit yes, gouge like the record labels, probably not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"make that money on the backs of the few willing to pay over the top for certain things unrelated to the artist being an artist"
You mean, like they always have? Or, are concerts and merchandise now unrelated because Mike's promoting them rather than your RIAA patrons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't work for the music industry.
I don't work for the movie industry.
I don't have a vested interest.
I don't have a patron.
These are my personal opinions, and nothing more.
CAN YOU PLEASE GET OVER IT ALREADY? Seriously, the worn out "industry shill" bullshit is fucking annoying, and it's a cop out by people like you who don't have good answers. Every time you face a tough question, your answer appears to be "industry shill!", so you don't have to say anything.
Too bad you are so fucking wrong it's beyond understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As opposed to you, who any time anyone proves you wrong, you accuse them of secretly working for me.
I dunno... Paul's theory makes a lot more sense than your insane paranoia about the fact that everyone here disagrees with you. I will say that I agree that you're not an industry shill. No one pays you to spew forth every day. If they did, they're not getting their money's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like all the times I've explained myself and my position to you, only to be called a "freetard" and accused of being a thief/pirate?
Your m.o. is to shoot down, insult or attack anyone who suggests a business model that differs from the current **AA models - from customers like me to actual working artists and others. You continue until you're finally met with a fact you can't contradict, ignore, or a poster you can't insult, then disappear on to the next thread.
Please help me understand: why would someone act like this they're not paid to do so by the people who benefit from this shutting down of opposing thought? As an intelligent human being willing to listen to the opinions of others (if presented insult free, with facts), it's literally beyond my comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will concede any point well made, any point that is valid and with support. What I don't concede here (or anywhere) is points that are made by slicing things narrowly, by using half truths, or by trying to use opinion as fact.
I respect your opinion. Try respecting mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So what you are saying is that your entire business model for development is based on a South Park joke? I am sure glad you didn't use a fart joke instead."
No insight, no details about what might be a problem with the model or ideas on how to improve it. Just a pithy comment formed as a direct insult.
Please explain, why is that worthy of respect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you actually imagine a business model based on one of the many fart jokes on South Park?
I think you need to lighten up a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, the fact that this "joke" seems to be barely distinguishable from your usual line of argument should tell you something.
[ 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:
Yet, those artists that actually take his advice end up making more money than they would otherwise. Funny how you don't mention this part.
He wants them to do more for less money, give up more of themselves to earn it, and make that money on the backs of the few willing to pay over the top for certain things unrelated to the artist being an artist (the old "scarce goods" argument).
I've never seen any business model on Techdirt that actually makes these demands. You're more accurately describing traditional labels, studios, and publishers, who treat artists far, far worse than any business model Mike has encouraged.
I'm also at a loss how you could level this charge against the Step2 site. Artists give up nothing to participate; in fact, they don't even have to participate at all to get useful business ideas. The site, quite literally, does nothing but help.
it's Mike Masnick working hard to be a middleman (and to profit from it).
There is a vast difference between being an enabler, and being a gatekeeper. Having more "middlemen" that are enablers helps artists; having gatekeepers harms them.
And if Mike is able to make money from helping artists for free, as the Step 2 site does - then what's wrong with that? He's doing a good thing; I'd prefer it if he got rewarded for his work. Or are you one of those "freetards" who thinks that Mike should not get paid for his labor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh yeah, now I remember...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
I'm struggling with how you could possibly have a problem with this platform where consumers tell creators EXACTLY how they want to buy and allow them to impliment it if they choose....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
You, too could be a major media company executive! If you can't imagine a way for an artist to make money other than selling shiny plastic discs, then you are fully qualified for employment with any of the major RIAA labels or MPAA studios. You have already had all of the creativity and ability to see beyond what worked in 1978 completely beaten out of you, saving your potential media employer the huge sums of money such brainwashing efforts require.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
All business plans should be created by a bunch of cigar smoking, scotch drinking suits in a board room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
In all likelihood they are going to have to create multiple models targeted at different music style, age, economic, and geographic groups. Then it becomes a mix and match to target specific groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
No, actually Mike gave several suggestions on what they can do. If you don't see them or acknowledge them, that's your hang up. And those are just a few. Other ideas can come from the content creators themselves, their customers, etc.
I worry that nowadays, people seriously need to have their hands held and have things spelled out entirely for them otherwise they're like babes lost in the woods. Or hiding under their blankets in their bedrooms scared of the boogeyman ("boogeyman" being my way of saying "change").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... your plan is to come up with a plan?
I bet that bugs you, huh? "Pirate Mike" is directly helping artists in his own way, very publicly, and you've not done a damn thing other than bitch on his blog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
... Wait, what?
Back in England, he was the first man to ride the River Severn’s five-foot tidal bore and designed his own board. In retirement, however, his eccentricity continued. He startled train conductors and passenger by throwing his attaché case out of the train window each day on the ride home. He later explained that he was tossing his case into his own backyard so he wouldn’t have to carry it from the station
... I was going to make a Chuck Norris joke, but damn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From that link, here's how his war story ends:
Churchill and his team were tasked with capturing a German fortification creatively called "Point 622." Churchill took the lead, charging ahead of the group into the dark through the barbed wire and mines, pitching grenades as he went. Although his unit did their best to catch up, all but six of them were lost to silly things like death. Of those six, half were wounded and all any of them had left were pistols. Then a mortar shell swung in and killed/mortally wounded everyone who wasn't Jack Churchill.
When the Germans found him, he was playing "Will Ye No Come Back Again?" on his bagpipes. Oh, we didn't mention that? He carried them right next to his big fucking sword.
After being sent to a concentration camp, he got bored and left. Just walked out. They caught him again, and sent him to a new camp. So he left again. After walking 150 miles with only a rusty can of onions for food, he was picked up by the Americans and sent back to Britain, where he demanded to be sent back into the field, only to find out (with great disappointment) the war had ended while he was on his way there. As he later said to his friends, "If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years!"
[ 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:
Unless by "former crackhead" you mean AC, in which case a lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Modern day middlemen are the ones who try to get in the middle of what you are already doing, by pretending to be your friend or to offer you a valuable free service. See Google, Facebook, etc. These middlemen don't want your money directly (but they will take it), rather, they seek to profit from your presence, from your personal data, your expressed desires and needs.
What is funny is only a couple of weeks ago Mike set this up with his rather innocent post about facilitators not being middlemen. Little did we know back then that he was just prepping the landscape for this little bomb, so he can point to the previous article and say "we have already shown that facilitators aren't middlemen". Yet, this business model requires him to be in the middle.
It was sort of how the Case Studies thing was suppose to work, but big companies that were involved all headed out the door a couple of years back when I suspect they realized they weren't getting value for their money. Mike may have another explaination, but it's odd for him to have promoted the heck out of something and then just let it drop like a rock.
Beware of companies who want to be your online "friend". They almost certainly have their hand in your pocket or are compiling your personal information for resale in one form or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Modern day middlemen are the ones who try to get in the middle of what you are already doing, by (pretending to be your friend) or to (offer you a valuable free service)."
Clearly, I didn't suggest that their services are not valuable. Any other words you would like to try to shove into my mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Modern day middlemen are the ones who try to get in the middle of what you are already doing, by pretending (to be your friend) or (to offer you a valuable free service)."
I'm glad that's not what you meant, but don't act like I'm an idiot for reading your words correctly. Next time be a bit more careful with your grammar, smart-guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly, I didn't suggest that their services are not valuable.
No... You having a less-than-stupid thought in your head is not something that "clearly" happens, or something that anyone in their right mind would assume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why not just go back to posting as the anonymous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Somehow you have construed (using crazy troll logic) that Mike thinks no middleman should ever exist. That's stupid; a middleman should exist if they bring something valuable to the table that benefits both content creators and consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has said repeatedly that middlemen get in the way.
He recently made a huge post try to create a mindspace on Techdirt that would allow him to be a middleman, but instead of calling it a middleman he would be a "facilitator".
It's sort of the same as Google Ads. Google isn't a middleman, they just facilitate companies putting ads on websites (for 50% of the pie).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I am not going to play "search for Mike's exact words" game. It's a nice way to try to divert the discussion. Congrats on becoming the new middleman...oops "facilitator".
[ 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:
"We've been arguing for a while that the internet doesn't kill middlemen, it just changes what kind of middlemen you need."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01281116105/no-internet-doesnt-do-away-with-midd lemen-it-just-changes-their-role.shtml
"This doesn't mean the death of middlemen -- not by a long shot. There's still a huge role for middlemen to play"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110210/15534113046/nice-to-see-how-content-creators-have -more-power-over-middlemen.shtml
"That's not to say that all middlemen should be done away with. Not at all. There are plenty of great and important roles for middlemen in specific scenarios. Middlemen can do all sorts of useful and compelling things to enable content creators to go on and do much more in the world."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/00542712888/awkwardness-cutting-out-middleman.s html
Well - that was easy. Thanks for demonstrating how much of an idiot you are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice to know, now go away. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine.
I'm quite certain you said you like to molest goats last week.
No, don't ask me to play the "search for Anonymous Coward's exact words" game. It's a nice way to try to divert the discussion.
See how not having to back up what you say leaves you open to saying anything regardless of its veracity? That's why people like to see citations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oops, I guess I forgot to log in. My bad.
[ 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:
Disinter-mediation. Natural concept where efficiencies lead to the disuse of middle men (mostly due to enhanced communications).
Mike: There are roles for middlemen, just not gatekeepers.
Also: get a pair and tell us what your agenda is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for Mike's middlemen theory, you need only to refer to his post a couple of weeks back about the differences between middlemen as gatekeepers and middlemen as facilitators. In the end, the "gatekeepers" are useless, and that pretty much sums up anyone involved in the existing movie or music industry, because they are all about selling music and movies directly.
So he likes middlemen, as long as they aren't middlemen. Until he is a middleman, then he likes them as long as they aren't gatekeepers. But then again, they aren't really middlemen, they are facilitators. See how this works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I can fairly say that no, nobody understands what the hell you just said.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether a middleman sells music and movies directly, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are a gatekeeper. CD Baby sells music directly, and they are not a gatekeeper. On the other hand, there are gatekeepers who do not sell music and movies directly (research the Clear Channel for an example).
Gatekeepers are bad because in order to be a gatekeeper, you need to be either a monopoly, or part of a monopolistic cabal. This leads to all sorts of abuses - price fixing, payola, censorship, etc. Workers in those industries have less bargaining power (so are typically exploited more), consumers have fewer choices, etc. All of what I mentioned happens, pretty much continuously, in the music and movie industries.
Gatekeepers are bad for artists, bad for consumers, bad for their employees, and bad for the economy in general. The sooner they are done away with, the better.
What Mike is doing - and advocating - is nothing whatsoever like this. I really have no idea why you could think this is in any way a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of the services mentioned might be actually thought of as middlemen, but I don't see any requirement to use them. Or, they might have some value for the creator, and Step2 was just an additional, though maybe focused, pointer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please put a tab on top of techdirt for Step2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please put a tab on top of techdirt for Step2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm.
Techdirt creates a "Step 2" project based off a cartoon meme.
On a station owned by Viacom.
The same Viacom suing Google over YouTube infringement.
Step 4: Ask Internet for Legal Assist
I give it two days before Viacom's lawyers come knocking on the door for daring to build a money making venture on the IP of their property.
Non-joke aside, I'm rather excited over this news. I can't participate, but I will definitely look forward to reading the stories it'll produce.
Sell popcorn, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gosh Mike
Welcome to the free market. There is no magic formula in any free market industry that's guaranteed to get money from customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gosh Mike
And are attacking it. Clearly these are people that poke themselves in the eye while crying and touching themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
Sir, I am offended. If poking yourself in the eye while crying and touching yourself is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
They seem to be extremely fearful of this "New Thing" Mike is doing. Just like they have been fearful of every other new thing, over the past one hundred years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
I am pretty sure the trolls and copyright maximalists will go against anything Mike says. He could suddenly switch stance and they would probably still disagree with him because they forgot how to think for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
They seem to be extremely fearful of this "New Thing" Mike is doing. Just like they have been fearful of every other new thing, over the past one hundred years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gosh Mike
Mike has been doing this for years with his "case studies" section, and for the most part they come down to "worked once for this one guy" sorts of things.
Hey, did you hear? Trent Reznor makes his living off of movie music. Why? Because it's copyright stuff, and every time the movie plays he gets paid, every time a DVD gets sold he gets paid... it's called residuals. Remember that when you try to figure out where the money is actually being made in music, and why all the "DIY" stuff tends to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
Yes, let's kick the "no-name" bands when they're down, because fuck them for trying. Let's only highlight the .00001% of examples that you might agree are actually worthwhile or who fit your increasingly narrow description of "success."
Every time something works "once" for somebody, no matter how many different somebodies it is, you always point out how this example only works for this person. How many examples do you need? If you're looking for some sort of "musical success universal adapter," there's no such thing. Which is why having a platform like this will help each band/artist find their own particular route to success.
Or Mike could do what you do: bitch about how nothing works and somehow help the artists out through the creative process of declaring everything to be wrong.
Hey, did you hear? Trent Reznor makes his living off of movie music. Why? Because it's copyright stuff, and every time the movie plays he gets paid, every time a DVD gets sold he gets paid...
I thought the DVD world was awash in piracy as well. Did something change and it's now the guaranteed way to make a living artistically? If so, let's drop this PROTECT IP nonsense. It will end up doing more harm than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
Nice try, but you miss the point. I don't try to narrow what is success, I only look at the reality on the field and see what is really success - the true ability for an artist to be able to make their art without having to lose their time doing other things not related to their art. Every musician who is waiting tables or working in an office is a loss for all of us.
Success is those people getting to work doing what they love and what we enjoy - making their art without hindrance.
If you want to move the goalposts to the point where merely showing up is some sort of "success", then go for it. But with more and more "artists" fighting for a slice of a diminished pie, on average fewer and fewer of them will even match up to the low expectations set.
As for "it only works for them", here's a funny story. On a road I drive fairly often, there is a major intersection just before a bridge. It's very busy, and the traffic is stopped for 1 - 1.5 minutes during the cycle of the light. There is a guy, long hair, beard, kind of scruffy that "works" this corner. He walks down the middle of the traffic with a "homeless, please help" sort of a sign, and collects whatever money people will give to him. I have spoken to him a few times, enough to know that (a) he isn't homeless, he lives with his girlfriend in a nice place, and (b) he is making more than many doing this (he suggested about 30k a year).
Now, what makes the story funny (and relevant) is that this is clearly a successful business model. He lives well, eats well, and gets to work his own hours. However, it's a bit of a one off. A few people in each area MIGHT be able to make it work, but if there was 10 or 20 people walking through traffic with him all with the same sort of signs, that 30k would be spread between them and nobody would make enough to make it worth doing. Moreover, there is potential that people would give even less loose change, because they feel they are getting scammed.
What works... what is functional in any one case doesn't mean it works for everyone or can even be applied outside of it's narrow current use.
The music industry WAS a functional business model. It worked well, it could be applied over and over again, and structures were built around this functional business model that profited everyone including the artists. The true proof of any business model is the ability to "wash, rinse, repeat" and have it almost always turn out right. Nothing is 100%, but why settle for a 1% solution that is no solution at all?
I don't throw up my arms and say "his model won't work for others", I look at it and see where it won't scale, where it is not going to work out, and suggest that there has to be a better solution. One off "solutions" are like gaffers tape. It works, but it isn't a real long term solution to anything.
For the movie world, because there is still a sizable number of people willing to pay for the product (but sliding), there is more money there than there is in purely trying to sell music. A few years from now that might no longer be the case, but Trent spotted the right opening and went for it. He seems to have figured out that making and giving away music doesn't make him a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
I agree - which is why I'm glad Mike is on the artists' side.
Interestingly, not a single artist in a Techdirt case study (that I know of) is "waiting tables or working in an office." Amanda Palmer, for example, has not held a "day job" since she worked at Toscanini's in the early 2000's. She is still recording music, still touring constantly, and still doing art during 90% of her waking hours. Frankly, I'm a bit jealous.
But with more and more "artists" fighting for a slice of a diminished pie
The pie has not diminished; it has grown, and there are more artists taking a slice now than there were even ten years ago.
I love how you put the word "artists" in quotes, by the way. Nice to see your contempt poking through the well-manicured veneer of false concern.
What works... what is functional in any one case doesn't mean it works for everyone or can even be applied outside of it's narrow current use.
So why are you demanding that only one way should work? Why do you deride every business model that's not solely based on selling a physical reproduction of art?
In essence, the traditional media gatekeepers are that one guy on the streetcorner. Except that guy isn't trying to pass laws to keep all the other guys out of his intersection.
The music industry WAS a functional business model.
Much of the music industry still is a functional business model. The recording industry, alone, is what's in trouble.
And the recording industry was never a successful business model. By their own admissions, 90% of their albums failed to recoup. In other words, 90% of the artists on a major label made no money whatsoever from artist royalties. (And they said this in the late 90's and early 2000's - when the recording industry was making more money than it had at any other point in history.) I would not call an industry with a 90% failure rate "functional."
And even if you're in that top 10%, record sales account for only a tiny portion of your income. For example, Paul McCartney was the top earner in 2002. How much of his income was from record sales? 15%. And this figure is pretty typical for all major recording artists.
The plain fact is that the recording industry is, and always was, a terrible business model. Now that the Big Four (formerly the Big Six) are no longer collectively a monopoly, they're failing - like every bad business should, and does, without the government propping them up. That's why they're spending so much on lobbying - they're simply looking for a government handout, like the auto industry, or the failed banking system.
[Trent Reznor] seems to have figured out that making and giving away music doesn't make him a living.
He made a huge amount of money "making and giving away music" - much more than he could on a major label. That's why he left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
You know, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure I agree with this.
Don't get me wrong; I think artists should make money, and most deserve a lot more than what they get now.
But here's the thing. If you're making music, and also waiting tables or working at an office, then you're making art for art's sake. You're putting out what you want, when you want, and are beholden to nobody for your paycheck (in terms of the art I mean).
On the other hand, if you're a professional artist, then you're not making art for art's sake, you're making a product. And it has to be thought of like any other product: you create it for "consumers," you change it to match the whims of pop culture, etc. Not just the artist (as an "employee"), but the art itself, is beholden to bosses in suits and the dictates of marketing departments.
I own a fairly extensive music collection (not even including digital), and the vast majority of it is done by people who have day jobs. This is no accident; certainly there are ideological reasons I prefer underground music, but those reasons only get you so far. The main fact is because people who aren't "professional musicians" simply make better music.
This is significant when talking about copyright. Copyright, after all, is designed to benefit the public; the theory is that creating an (artificial) monopoly market, in order to "commercialize" artistic production, is the best way to incentivize the creation of better artworks, artworks that benefit the public.
But I have found it is exactly the opposite. Not only is the public saddled with all the evils inherent in any monopoly, that monopoly results in inferior art.
It's not just me, either. The "sellout" accusation is a total cliche (and usually an unfair one), but it is at least based on a real phenomenon. Tons and tons of worthwhile artists have had their art reduced to trash by businessmen in boardrooms.
And it is precisely this type of art that is the primary beneficiary of copyright law. Is it really worth it?
...Of course, that's all just my personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
You just described Metallica. and U2. and the Stones. and pretty much every non-manufactured band who worked in their eras. Some "made it". Some didn't. Just because bands on the alternative aren't currently "making it" (by your estimation, but often by their own), doesn't mean that none will. When it does happen, it may be too late to recoup the profits those new guys are not paying you.
One day, people like you will probably be thought of in the way that people like the record exec who rejected The Beatles say "guitar bands are on the way out" or the MTV exec who claimed that no white kid wanted to listen to hip-hop. I can't wait for that day, to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
Take note, struggling content creators: This is what the other side thinks of you.
If you don't have a private jet, you're just trash under their boots and they revel in your pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
Are you a republican by any chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Gosh Mike
There is a difference between case studies, and crowdsourcing solutions. Case studies are static representations of past events. Step2 could become a place where the best ideas bubble to the top and evolve as things change. If there is one thing the record labels, movie, and TV studios cannot do, it is change rapidly. This is the oldest, and most deeply ingrained, achilles heel of the big media companies.
In the end this "DIY stuff" will likely become services and sites based on discussions occuring on boards like Step2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know it's a radical concept for TechDirt, but I think it just might work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know it's a radical concept for TechDirt, but I think it just might work!"
Please. That could only work for really, REALLY big artists.
(Hey, this is kind of fun, and this time it might ACTUALLY be true!!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* copyright_troll.php
*/
self::hideBehindAnonymousCowardAccount();
foreach ($techdirt as $story) {
//$story->read();
foreach($story as $comment) {
if ($comment->isWellWritten() && $comment->makesAGoodPoint() ) {
continue;
}
switch(rand(1,5) {
case 1: $story->post( new IJustDontSeeIt() ); break;
case 2: $story->post( RIAALobby::getLatestTalkingPoint() ); break;
case 3: $story->post( new SomethingContray() ); break;
case 4: $story->post( new PersonalAttack() ); break;
case 5: $story->post( new FlatOutLie() ); break;
}
}
}
self::cashCheckFromLobbyingFirm();
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd like Steve Albini to come write my grocery lists because I know he likes to cook and might break me out of my same-old-shopping-list blues. Then he could hang out at the house and verbally abuse my music collection, like "Surfer Rosa" by the Pixies. Or this album by Kid 606.
Vampire Weekend could probably do some cool stuff with playdough, like make vases and pronounce them "vahzez" or maybe crank out replacement buttons for my $750 button-down Oxfords. Or maybe we could build a shrine to Paul Simon out of matchsticks and then set it on fire while drinking something imported.
I'd like Rick Ross to babysit one even so I can go out with my wife. When we get home, we'll allow him to regale us with tales of the hard knock life that is drug dealing/being a prison guard. Juxtaposition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://michaeldempster.com/post/1256694678
[Scroll down a bit until you see the album title.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I can't check their music out? I have to listen to radio filled with crap I don't like, ads I hate or even have to pay to sample their music? Screw that, I'll go for the other bands, and they'll get my money even if I don't pay for recordings of work they did 20 years ago...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not saying there aren't alternate ways of raising money but relegating yourself to only listening to artists who give away their music really limits your access. Also, telling musicians they must follow the free music model is very shortsighted, it would be like telling the car industry that all vehicles must be sub-compact green machines. What might work for some may not be a good fit for others, to each his/her own.
As an artist you are free to decide whether you want to go the recording contract route, you're own freebie/alternate revenue route, some hybrid route, or even some new method. Maybe instead of realeasing any music in digital form or recording at all - instead they only play live shows, nothing breeds interest and intrigue like exclusivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I won't if it's crap. I'll listen to preview it, but don't expect my money if you're shit.
"I don't like going to concerts"
I do, but don't often get the chance. I'll make the effort for those I have access to, though.
"if the music is free I might listen to it once even if I don't like it"
Isn't this repeating your first point? How do you know you don't like it if you haven't listened to it yet? If you don't like it, why would you pay?
"relegating yourself to only listening to artists who give away their music really limits your access"
All artists "give away" their music. Radio is free of charge to the end user. I can be in a bar or watch a free-to-air TV show and I didn't pay for that music, nor did I pay if I borrowed off a friend or listened at a party.
You're blind to the realities of the industry if you think that any song you've ever heard has not been "given away" at some point. The issue is - and always has been - how to monetise that. The way that used to be achieved (selling copies) is no longer viable. You're a poor businessman if you don't realise that and don't try looking for alternatives.
"As an artist you are free to decide whether you want to go the recording contract route, you're own freebie/alternate revenue route, some hybrid route, or even some new method. "
...and as a customer, I'm free to buy from the artists whose methods intrigue me. Don't come accusing me of piracy because I choose someone who's not tied to the RIAA. Sadly, that's all you idiots have been doing for the last decade, instead of listening to my opinions and offering a reason and method to buy.
"nothing breeds interest and intrigue like exclusivity."
Tell me how that works out for Barnes & Noble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, what?
Wait, what's that? Gnomes operated under open GNU liscenses? Gasp! What will their IP lawyers do! Well, once the injury & death lawsuits are caught up, anyways...
(1. absurd plan, 2. ???, 3. profit is an old D&D joke)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK...
and I've played for 40 years. They want GGOD stuf, they can pay for it.
the whole www is a fast, cheap and out-of-control excersise for me. traffic tells all.
outta the 69 vids, 365 comics, a couple megs of SF stories..... politics and hockey gets the most traffic. (say a couple hundred hits)
everything else dies, still-born.
notices of new works gets spammed to friends, family, a couple soc networks and where rel on the chats/boards.
nothing so far. The market lives, is still dirty (more theives than customers and they want sex+violence)
gatekeeping? You betcha. AND there's a couple treaties allowing wholesale copyrighting of public domain, too.
prep for darknet, the rest of www will get slammed shut by disney + co.
packrat2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An alternative to Bandzoogle
I created an alternative to Bandzoogle called Bandmo.com (http://bandmo.com), you might want to check it out. It's more much simple than Bandzoogle (in a good way).
Vincent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]