No Record Label, But Amanda Palmer Raises Over $100k In Just Six Hours On Kickstarter
from the what-are-people-complaining-about-again? dept
We've certainly written about Amanda Palmer's many success stories on this site before -- including her celebration of the fact that she finally got dropped from a record label two years ago. Since then, she's done a bunch of fun projects, more or less going musically wherever she suddenly felt like going (all without the meddlesome hand of a record label demanding she do things its way). These experiments have been quite successful, and also quite lucrative. But she decided it was time to do a "traditional" studio album again, and put together a full orchestra to help, while also planning to make the physical package she sells totally and completely worth buying by including all sorts of original artwork with it.So... of course, she turned to Kickstarter to help put together funds, seeking $100,000 in 32 days. Instead, she got it in SIX HOURS. Damn. As we've noted, the success of Kickstarter as a funding platform is making it easier and easier to fund big projects, and this is yet another example of that. If you have a semi-decent following, you might question why you'd ever sell your soul to a large company for an "advance" again.
Once again, it seems that lots of artists are figuring out cool and creative ways to make money these days, even as the old industry continues whining. Of course, what's notable is that these new ways don't seem to involve those old industry players -- or their ridiculous deals where they get the copyright and keep the vast majority of income.
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: amanda palmer, crowdfunding, reason to buy, vinyl
Companies: kickstarter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Home Concert/Dinner with AFP Backers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Home Concert/Dinner with AFP Backers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am sure they are working on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, they are our slaves and work for us. For free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not news really, because signing a traditional deal with a large advance should have been bypassed years ago.
All I'll say is it's a lot easier to keep the bank happy if people buy your music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet, many artists still sign 360 deals that put them into voluntary indentured servitude. Those days are numbered though. As more and more musicians figure out the stupidity of dealing with the majors, less targets will be available and the majors will have to do more and more to struggle to hold on to their current fat cow.
All I'll say is it's a lot easier to keep the bank happy if people buy your music.
If you can't keep the bank happy, maybe it is time to look for a different job. People will buy your music if you are good to them, and don't constantly treat them as thieves, and offer them something to buy from you. Amanda seems to be doing this well. If you aren't, then it is likely because you're doing it wrong, not because others are lucky.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My comment is only that exceptional cases don't define a business model. Kickstarter type financing is just a passing trend, something that seems nice until it screws up somewhere along the line.
Congrats to her for having loyal fans willing to pay ahead. Although, isn't it stupid and anti- "try before you buy"? Seems to be exactly what piracy isn't. Hmmm.
Does not compute, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't compute for you because you're one of the few shills that insist that Techdirt is pro-piracy. You can't stomach the idea that the site supports people who want to pay others out of sheer goodwill.
But you know what, we'll keep this article in mind so that the next time you insist that Techdirt is pro-piracy, we can prove you wrong with yet another counterexample.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kickstarter projects (of ALLLL varieties) have about a 40-50% success rate. Should they just shudder their doors and tell people to go elsewhere? The numbers show successfully funded projects aren't overwhelmingly the rule/the norm, right?
Stupid.
But hey, if you're so easily discouraged from trying to do something, more room for someone who's going to fight and work and train like their life depended on it.
Amanda's assemblage of positive elements are clearly working for her (in this instance and in many others), and they definitely are NOT interchangeable with any other artist…but no one's saying THAT.
The message of the video - "THIS IS THE FUTURE OF MUSIC" - is not trying to tell people that her project is a blueprint or that if you try and copy her bundle rewards you'll raise $100k on a Monday morning…the MESSAGE is about fucking connection.
As she said on Twitter this afternoon: "$100,000 raised in 6 hours. no label, no cocksucking mainstream radio shows, no billboards, no marketing bullshit. PEOPLE + INTERNET. DONE."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This doesn't even make sense. Are you calling her an "exception?" If so, you should be saying "exceptions prove rules," the rule being "you can't succeed without a label."
Otherwise, I have no idea what you're even trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The proverb, of course, says the exact opposite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, there's a point when all of these thousands of "exceptions" become the rule. And then you look pretty foolish. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HBS' Shadowrun Returns kickstart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HBS' Shadowrun Returns kickstart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sell music, not copies
http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=251
Selling music is the future.
Selling copies is the past - we make our own copies for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sell music, not copies
Would you have heard about her without her label (and her telling them to fuck off?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Cargo cult argument. Pure unadulterated BS.
Would you have heard about her without her label (and her telling them to fuck off?)
I hadn't heard of her when she was with her label. I've heard a lot more of her since she left her label, because she has put out the word herself.
We've seen where folks have sold stuff to the industry only to have the industry sit on it and not do anything. If it doesn't fit into the industries definition of a sure thing, they are more likely to sit on it and not promote it. At that point, they are just buying it to prevent anyone else from turning it into a success because if there is one thing they hate more than spending money on promoting someone who isn't Justin Bieber, its passing up on promoting someone who is Justin Bieber and having someone else make more money on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Labels have also signed bands up, locking their music up, then the label tells them they didn't want the competition for "___ ____" band. There's a number of tricks up their sleeve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Chicken/egg. I heard about The Dresden Dolls before they signed, but I know a LOT of the fanbase came along in the years following.
I won't detract from the amount of touring they did to raise awareness, but in a pre-everyone-on-the-internet-era / pre-easy-DTF-tools, the label did do some good.
I don't doubt that Amanda would've still garnered attention and success after leaving them, she's TALENTED and SMART, but they also helped put her into a position so that when she shouted into the ether, it shouted back.
Maybe you didn't hear about her 'till she was free, but I bet a combination of interest earned via fans who DID, helped spread her message to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
I am sure that is true with every artist. I've seem bands in concert that weren't signed until after I saw them, and they still had quite a following. When they were signed, they got exposure and went bigtime. However I'd bet there are just as many I've seen that have disappeared into obscurity.
Maybe you didn't hear about her 'till she was free, but I bet a combination of interest earned via fans who DID, helped spread her message to you.
If it was anything that got her message out it was her connecting with her fans, and her fans spreading the message. Those fans may have come from whatever promotion she received from the label, but had she squandered it, she would have lost those fans. Labels don't make fans, and they certainly don't keep fans. Labels may create buzz, which gets people interested, but it is the artist that keeps them. When Metallica started suing their fans, they likely lost more fans (they certainly lost me.) Many of us believe that it doesn't take label buzz to make fans any more -- and I need only point to other recent artists who have become quite successful without the labels by connecting with their own fans and giving them a reason to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Nice to see my Cargo cult meme gaining a bit of traction!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Hey, if it fits, wear it. As long as you don't come back expecting me to pay you for it. It is a good meme, but not really worth much since it can only be used in relation to shills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
See, I can make up baseless hypothetical situations too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Seems like she could have been doing her own thing all along if she'd never signed with the label in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
It's possible, though working an office job would indicate that she wouldn't have been starving.
There are a lot of musicians signed to labels I've never heard of and likely never will because the label is just sitting on them "until the right time" and the musicians seem to think that because they've signed on the dotted line they no longer have to gig, play weekends in pubs in some small town somewhere before returning to the "day job". I've known some.
Would I have heard of her? As it happens I had. She's clearly very talented and capable though I'm not fond of the style she plays I know people who are and helped to finance this in their small way.
Music is like any other art form in that you have to work at it, hone your skills and become good at it. Part of those skills is to be able to connect with your audience/fans something which she does well. The home made ad for Kickstarter shows that.
As to her telling her label to stick it where the sun don't shine. Lots of artists would love to do that. Most, for their own reasons don't.
She's selling her music without going into debt before hand to her former label. So she can focus on her music.
Copies, for them that wants them, will sell themselves when the time comes.
And you have a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
I never heard of her before. I made a pledge based purely on the sample in her presentation. I pledged because I like her music. Too bad if the big labels were too greedy to match our Kickstarter offer. Our gain, their loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sell music, not copies
I am an Artist and have many songs shared for free.I seed my Art on P2P and offer direct downloads.I have never thought I wanted to sign with a Big Label.I am an original 1976 Punk Rocker who hates and has hated the large Corporate Labels.
Artists who sign with those bloodsuckers are traitors to me and to most of my friends who do not own one piece of Big Label Stuff in their record collections.
All of us listen to INDIE and buy INDIE.
I so look forward to seeing those Big Labels go extinct.I am 56 and hope to live long enough to see it happen.No Artist needs to ever dream of signing as you will sign your life away.Go DIY and it will pay off in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Music from an era that I love. Where can I see your stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
http://www.myspace.com/bigmeathammer
http://www.facebook.com/pag es/Big-Meat-Hammer/112437112128524
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sell music, not copies
Stick those links in your profile Gore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's honestly a system ripe for the plucking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And it's not even illegal. If you think you can make some easy money tricking people into paying you on Kickstarter, I would LOVE to see you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What happens if AP takes in $200,000, produces an album in a couple of days, and uses the rest of the money to buy a house. Is that a valid use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now lets assume these people paying her are her biggest fans. What do you think happens to her fan base when she doesn't come through with any of her promises.
The result seems pretty obvious, so I won't continue to spoon feed it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention that doing so would be considered traditional fraud. Are we going to shut down all the newspapers because someone might use it to post a pyramid scheme? Are we going to shut down television because shady companies can sell bait-and-switch PC repair scams, or scareware? Are we going to shut down the mail service because some Lads from Lagos can use it to perpetrate 409 scams?
Kickstart is a tool. Its use to perpetrate fraud is no different than any other tool. Shutting it down is a slippery slope that has been shot down, thankfully, in the past by judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course if you are crowdsourcing your funds you have to be smarter than the whole the internet to pull off the fraud. Unlike the good old days of just fooling a couple investors and running away with the cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is that different from investing $10,000 making an album selling 30,000 copies and using the proceeds to buy a house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unlike mortgages or investmentment banks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are ignorant.
Kickstarter funders are not investors. They have no equity stake. All rights remain with the artist - although commonly the work is released on permissive licenses.
The issue you raise simply does not apply!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does that mean someone can not defraud the system? Of course not but its no more prone to fraud then any other model. Apple could package a piece of shit in the next iphone5 box. They could still sell billions in pre-orders before anyone got a box. Does that mean we should stop pre-orders? Or should we just let the market and existing laws handle cases of fraud as they arrive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Strangely I don't see anything illegal or immoral about any of that. Though your guile is point positive that The "moral minority" is scared of what Kickstarter is and what Amanda herself is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a whore.
www.ticketmaster.com
Look at all these whores! Does the fed know how easy you can get tickets for whores online!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, you sir are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't see any embeds here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Remember, the new middlemen are still middlemen... and gurus, well, Can you say "Tom Vu"?
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You shouldn't deserve a job tomorrow just because you've had it for the last 10 years. If you aren't worth what your company is paying you, they will let you go.
Well, the music industry is letting the labels go. "Distribution channels" exist without needing to pay a premium. If the new model cannibalizes the old, it's only the labels fault for not getting on board sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) From what I've from actual musicians, the labels don't really provide that much support for acts they didn't specifically create out of whole cloth. Also, if people don't want plastic disks, you don't need a distribution system.
2) Pretty much no one has a goal of getting everyone (musicians) to the promised land. It was never the case and never will be the case. Very few people can even make a basic living as a musician, Almost nobody if you exclude teaching income, and an infinitesimal number only through recording (you know, the only part of the music business threatened by filthy pirates).
By the way, if this is all about her flipping off her label, I'd have to guess there's a reason she is unhappy with the label.
And then we have Mike's ideas now suddenly powerful enough to destroy the music industry (of which the recording industry is only a part ... you keep conveniently forgetting that). That's quite a turnaround from the typical label story told here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Turning to "distribution systems" have you noticed a distinct lack of shiny round disk retailers lately? A decline that went into freefall when LEGAL stores like iTunes arrived? It's very hard to blame all of that on "piracy". The market, as in music buyers, don't want CDs anymore. Vinyl, yeah, CDs no. To change the name of a song slightly -- "I Want My MP3!".
In other words, the Web is your distribution system. Some musicians, quite a few, actually, would question the support systems of the big labels these days as well.
Pine away all you want for the fact that the recording industry as we know it is disappearing because of "technological change". And that artists actually have a choice in this day and age that they didn't have even 15 years ago. Get used to it. That self same industry is the author of its demise as many others have been.
The music business existed and thrived fore centuries before the recording industry became a force 100 years ago. And it will continue to both when the recording industry as we know it is given last rites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though the Recording Industry needs a bit of a kickstart in the concepts and ideas of ethics, strategic planning and corporate responsibility. Concepts it seems you too could do with education in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, the new middlemen are still middlemen... and gurus, well, Can you say "Tom Vu"?
I love this story because - as I predicted the moment I saw it - it has forced people like you to new levels of idiocy in your attempts to counter it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone? Anyone?
...Beuller?
Fuck you and your labels.
O_o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Phil on Apr 30th, 2012 @ 3:10pm
I've been acquainted with Amanda for about 10 years, and you couldn't be more wrong.
In fact, I would not even have heard of Techdirt were it not for her blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, that ridiculous claim was debunked a few years ago:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0208545494.shtml
She funded her own first album, and built up a huge following on her own. The label got a few more people out at college shows, but didn't get them to stick around. Her loyal following didn't come from the label according to multiple people familiar with her success (including an ex-manager).
So, um, nice try, but no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does she need $100,000 for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
Plus, if grandparent had even read the summary (I know, tl;dr for Anonymous Coward,) she planned to hire a full orchestra to back her up, and orchestras cost money. If she tours with that orchestra, it is going to be even more expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What does she need $100,000 for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay by me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay by me
But really, not a lot of people begrudge Amanda Palmer. I think they begrudge places like Techdirt that still keep propping her up as an example to artists, neglecting the fact that she was built up in the old system, and is one of very few artists who are making decent money at their craft. At this point, the lack of other successful "case studies" is proving the point that the 'new model' is unsustainable. She's become the exception that proves the rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay by me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay by me
Publishing Books, which are traditionally still tangible (and will be for a long long time to come) and have centuries of legacy tradition behind them, can not be compared to Music which the publishing side has had a century if not less as it currently stands. They are chalk and cheese in this context.
Though her husband being Neil Gaiman does create a separate thing. Apart they are not to bad, together they are freakin awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Okay by me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay by me
Really? None at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay by me
What about Jessica Frech? She isn't extremely famous, but she has quite a following. She isn't signed. And just because you haven't heard of her doesn't mean that she doesn't have quite a following. There are a number of others who have become quite successful without using the old system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Okay by me
It is the way of the world that very few artists make decent money at their craft.
It always has been and always will be that way.
What was your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
Three Years of Kickstarter Projects - Graphic - NYTimes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
That said I'd agree that most music and arts projects don't scale as well as some other offerings. The music fundraisers do seem to make their targets though which are well under a million bucks.
That it does provide musicians with an alternative to their own pockets or the recording industry is an overall positive in my view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I wasn't talking about ROI. I was noting that music doesn't seem to generate significantly large donation totals. Music as a category brings in lots of money, but individual projects aren't reaching the heights that we are seeing in design and gaming. There's been no million dollar music project. The biggest so far has been $207,980. Perhaps Palmer's latest project will top that, but I can't see her reaching the same level as the top projects in other categories.
In theory there's no reason why music couldn't have a million dollar project, but so far nothing has been close. I'm guessing that fans already know they can get the recorded music for free anyway, and in most cases there's no reward compelling enough to get lots of people to pay in advance for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
Or, maybe they know that music can be done with fewer people, and significantly less investment, than even an indie video game. Think about it: an indie game needs music, and the costs to produce that music will be about equal to your average band's recording costs.
Just a theory. Also, do you have any evidence whatsoever that people consider music to be "more free" than video games? I can't see it, especially since most video games are moving to a "free to play" model (and making money doing that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
No, I don't. Just speculation on my part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
Please tell me where you thought Amanda was recording "a song that has already been written."
Well, unless you mean written by her... in which case, that means you're saying record labels are saving money, too. After all, most of the songs artists record for record labels are songs "that have already been written" - by themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
But for the Pebble watch, the project organizers asked for $100,000 and raised $7 million. I don't think the people paying them were thinking that the organizers "needed" $7 million but that a band does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
Just speculating, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I definitely think buying an object that you want and that might be offered at a discount if you prepay is a big reason why successful design projects do well.
Music projects as a whole don't seem to offer the same kinds of compelling objects to buy. Palmer's project has already raised the bar for music projects, but I'm guessing it won't hit the $1 million mark. I don't know that, though.
I've just been intrigued by what works and doesn't work on Kickstarter, so whenever I can learn something about the process, I pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
That's because a music album doesn't require a million+ dollars to produce. Despite the money a major label will pour into album production for their artists (usu. in order to keep them in debt), we've gotten to the point where independent artists' recordings sound every bit as good. Indeed, an album's quality cannot be determined by its production costs, just as an artist's worth cannot be determined by the clothes they wear or the car they drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I don't think that is a factor because for the really lucrative Kickstarter projects, the people raise considerably more than their goals. The Pebble watch organizers wanted to raise $100,000 but got $7 million. I don't think all those who chipped in money thought the watch makers "needed" $7 million.
If that is what is actually happening, then that would suggest that those who chip in money have assigned a value to a concept and rate music lower than a watch or a game. They see music as easier to make than a watch or a game. And they don't factor in the cost of touring, putting together a light show, etc. They have decided there aren't a lot of additional expenses to being a musician. Is that your interpretation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
I don't think that's true at all. It's just that there are a lot more musicians on Kickstarter than there are video game developers or watchmakers.
If you add up all the money given to musicians, vs. the money given to watchmakers and video game developers, I'd wager that more people gave money, total, to musicians. In fact, I'd say it wouldn't even be close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
If you look at the link I posted, you will see the total given to music projects versus the total given to other projects. And yes, in the aggregate music gets a lot of money. But for individual projects, music hasn't reached the big leagues compared to other categories. I've been pondering why that might be.
But you actually have made a point I've been making over and over again about the reality for musicians. There are so many of them that the amount going to each one tends to be small. And I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but it needs to be addressed when people talk about opportunities. For most musicians, music alone won't generate a living wage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music doesn't trigger huge payouts
In the last 20 years the costs of recording have plummeted, software, hardware, instruments, the lot. You can now produce something in your bedroom to a higher standard than many of the labels were kicking out in the 70s and early 80s.
The thing that hasn't got cheaper is time or expertise. Sometimes your biggest recording cost is actually going to be the time of a decent producer, and you'll pay that, because that skill can be the differentiator.
This is the new challenge for musicians, there's so much really good stuff out there, finding the great stuff is that much harder.
But as a musician and customer, I reckon that's a pretty good challenge to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So in summary...
2- It will only work for X
3- It's not really working for X because X is having to do loads of other stuff
4- X would never have made it without the record label in the first place
5- People will never pay for anything if they can get it for free
6- I've never heard of X so X is not a proper musician anyway
7- Kickstarter is fine for the small stuff but you'll never raise any serious money on it
I think that's the usual list of complaints isn't it?
Now let's translate that
1- You need us! No-one's worked out how to make money on the web!
2- You're too small and insignificant to try this yourself, come to our welcoming embrace.
3- Because in the old model everyone instantly becomes a millionaire and never has to work again.
4- Because there's no way to get your CDs into the record shops. You remember them don't you?
5- All your fans are criminal scum, you'd be better off arresting them in advance really, it will save on the court time later.
6- Because we define what music is culturally relevant, don't forget that, we bought the rights...
7- Pay no attention to the old man behind the curtain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pricing for Kickstarter collaborations
A number of projects offer rewards that go beyond music. There might be art or some sort of other object.
So I have wondered about the income sharing arrangements for these. Does the musician contract out for the items, creating a work-for-hire arrangement (e.g., he hires someone to make a design for a t-shirt and then owns the design and make sell multiples)?
Or does the musician team up with others and they share in the income in some fashion? And if they share in it, how do they decide what each earns? Do they split it up equally? Do they get different amounts, depending on how much each contributes? And if that, how do they decide? By the amount of time put in? By the commercial going rate? By how much "fame" each brings to the project?
Amanda Palmer has multiple people contributing to her Kickstarter project so I shot her a question to see how she handles it. What's the arrangement when they just hit their goal and what's the arrangement when they greatly exceed their goal?
There's been so little discussion of music/multi-collaboration income sharing that I'm curious how various people divide it up. In some cases, the musicians may be hoping that the artists/photographers/graphic artists are donating their contributions in exchange for exposure, but if they are, I'm guessing that if the project is very successful, the volunteers are going to want some compensation, even if they don't think about it until after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pricing for Kickstarter collaborations
Let's say, for example, you were going to cut a musician a break because he had no money. But then he raised $300,000 on Kickstarter. I'm going to guess that now you know he has money, you won't feel the necessity to give him your work for free or at a rock bottom price.
Like I said before, I have been pondering all of this for several years as I watched musicians coming up with creative ways to reward contributors on Kickstarter. I've wondered how the Kickstarter money was going to be divvied up among people working across media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, real independent musicians cannot generate enough attention to garner that kind of cash. A much *better* example is Order of the Stick, because that really was organic. But the investment there is totally different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, by that time there will be no labels and no copyright and we'll have forgotten why we ever needed to convince the copyright exploiters and supporters that they and their 18th century privilege are dispensable and disposable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palmer's huge fan base
[ link to this | view in chronology ]