Mick Jagger: Artists Really Only Made Money Selling Music For About 25 Years

from the the-new-normal-is-the-old-normal dept

A bunch of people submitted this a while back, but I'm just getting around to writing it up. In an interview with the BBC, Mick Jagger is asked about things like file sharing, and he notes that, realistically, artists only made money selling music directly for a very short time:

But I have a take on that - people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn't make any money out of records because record companies wouldn't pay you! They didn't pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn't.

Now, I don't think that's entirely accurate on a few points. He's right that labels didn't pay artists, or often found creative accounting ways not to pay artists. But he's also wrong that "everyone made money" during those 25 years. Only a small percentage of artists actually made money during those years. There were a few that were heavily promoted by the labels and became rock stars, like Jagger. Other artists never made much at all.

Filed Under: business models, mick jagger, music

No, We Didn't Save* Journalism, But We Did Generate A Lot Of Ideas

from the not-saved-yet... dept

Last week, as you may have heard, we held out Techdirt Saves* Journalism event. It was actually quite a lot of fun, even if we didn't "save" journalism. JD Lasica, for PBS's MediaShift, wrote up a fantastic set of takeaways from the event, which I'll list out here, though you can read his full writeup for the details:

• Mine the data
• Elevate your writers
• Create a platform for your community
• Multiple revenue streams
• Expand the brand
• Changing ideas about "news"

This is a really great list -- and JD gets all the credit in the world for distilling that out of all the brainstorming that went on. And that really was the point. While we did have three short presentations at the beginning, the meat of the event was the separate breakouts that we had. Lots of people asked us to stream the event live, but given the nature of the event that wasn't really possible. There were five different workshops going on that were much smaller groups of folks trying to brainstorm new and different ideas.

The point of the event, of course, was never to save journalism. It was just to get people brainstorming about creative ideas. It brought together a variety of people from different backgrounds. There were plenty of journalists (of course), from an AP bureau chief to successful "citizen journalists" and everything in-between. There were technologists, marketers, PR people, consultants and lawyers -- startup people and big company people -- all mixed together. And that's part of what made it work so well. It wasn't just a bunch of newspaper people trying to brainstorm, but a wide variety of folks coming at it from varying perspectives. The amount of positive feedback we got from folks leaving the event was really astounding, with multiple requests to do more events like this (and even a few requests with specific ideas for what -- or who -- to "save*" next).

What struck me most about the event was how different groups came up with ideas that I'd never even thought about before. I don't think all of them would even work, but there was some really creative thinking going on. For example, there was at least one discussion about whether or not newspapers could use their existing delivery infrastructure for more than just delivering newspapers. I'm not sure how that would work out in reality -- but it did show an attempt to take what might be considered a liability and see if there was any way to turn it into an asset.

Another group discussed how a newspaper might be better off acting more as a "talent agency" for writers, building up some brand recognition around the writers themselves. Again, this might only work in certain circumstances, but it was a different kind of suggestion.

One group wondered why newspapers haven't been embracing new local advertising models, such as the massive success around GroupOn (the locally-focused mass purchasing discount offering service). Amusingly, the very next day after the event, the San Francisco Chronicle announced exactly that. However, I'm not sure that they're doing it right. During the discussion on services like GroupOn, one participant pointed out that one of the reasons why GroupOn works so well is that it's actually creating compelling content within the "ads" themself (i.e., going back to the whole advertising is content; content is advertising concept). But the SF Gate's GroupOn clone seems to have incredibly boring copywriting. This is really quite stunning when you think about it. These local newspapers should be able to blow the likes of GroupOn out of the water: they have good content creators on staff, as well as better connections with local merchants, and a brand name that people recognize. But, at least initially, it looks like they're phoning it in.

One of the groups decided to use the magazine Harper's as a case study, and when one of the participants mentioned this on Twitter, the folks at Harper's actually asked about what they discussed, and Rick Klau then wrote up a blog post describing what their group came up with. Again, the idea clearly wasn't to literally "save" Harper's in the one brainstorming session alone, but to use it as a thought exercise, and get people thinking -- which it clearly did.

All in all, it seemed like the "thought-provoking-idea" per hour quotient was extremely high. As I said, I'm sure plenty of the ideas wouldn't necessarily make sense, but the fun thing about the event was we quickly got past the typical answers of "put up a paywall!" and got down to thinking creatively very, very quickly, including quite a few ideas that are certainly worth exploring further. For example, as a group, we ended up having a long discussion about whether or not there was commercial potential in some of the knowledge reporters had that could be effectively used as a research report, of sorts. There were certainly concerns about the trust issues related to this, but others also had some ideas on how to mitigate the trust concerns.

On the "constructive criticism" side, some people felt that too much of the discussion did end up focusing on how to save legacy publications. I can take some of the blame here, as one of the brainstorming guidelines suggested picking "a publication." I did say this wasn't a necessary step (and not every group did, in fact, pick a specific publication), but I also probably should have made it clear that this didn't need to be a legacy or paper publication, since it seemed like all of the groups who picked a publication ended up focusing on paper publications. It might have been better/more interesting to also have people looking at newer online publications (though, in fairness, most of the discussions did focus on ways to bring those old publications more into the online world). Something to keep in mind for future events.

I did want to thank all of the attendees for coming out and participating. Part of the point I made early on is that this wasn't a lecture or a seminar or anything like that. It was a brainstorming session, and we expected everyone to participate -- and, for the most part, every group that I spent time with seemed to make sure that everyone was, in fact, participating. So, special thanks again for so many smart people showing up and taking part. Also, special thanks to Hal Varian, Google chief economist, and Ian Rogers, Topspin's CEO, for getting everyone's creative juices flowing with their presentations, both of which fit together nicely, digging into some of the data from the news consumption world first, followed by a different perspective on some of the data coming out of the music world. The combined presentations really helped set the table for the brainstorming that followed. Hal and Ian also were great at bouncing around from group to group to take part in those discussions as well. Also, a special thanks to the team at Google who helped coordinate on their end.

As mentioned, a bunch of folks asked us about future events (and one told us this was more fun and more valuable than a huge mutli-million dollar "save journalism" event he had been to previously), so we'll definitely be looking to do future events like this one. We're certainly open to ideas (and, obviously, other potential sponsors/hosts). Thanks again to everyone who participated.

Filed Under: brainstorming, business models, journalism

Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities

from the cool dept

Last year, we wrote about a fascinating "art" project, called "Significant Objects," that involved a bunch of writers buying up random cheap/worthless trinkets, but then listing them on eBay along with a creative (fictional) story about the object. The "story" was given away for free, but the object cost money. What those involved in the project quickly found was that these worthless trinkets were suddenly selling for a lot more than their nominal "price." It was a perfect example of how an infinite good (the story), when properly attached to a scarce good (the trinket), can make that scarce good much more valuable. This is a point that many have trouble grasping. They think, when we discuss the economics of infinite and scarce goods, that the price on scarce goods always remains the same, and never seem to take into account how a connected infinite good can greatly raise the value and the price of a scarce good. A hit song (infinite) heard by millions increases the price of a concert tickets (scarce). A brilliant blog post (infinite) can increase the price of a consultant (scarce) who wrote it. A sterling reputation (infinite) for an automobile company can increase the price of the cars (scarce) they sell. It goes on and on and on.

The Significant Objects experiment was just a neat "pure" example of this in action, clearly showing how objects that otherwise would have been valued quite low by most potential buyers, could gain in value when an infinite element (a good story) was attached.

It's cool to see that those behind the Significant Objects projects are still trying to do more with the concept. The auctions apparently are still going on, but now they're trying something different as well. They're taking those stories and compiling them into a book (scarce). In fact, the story behind the book (infinite) makes the physical book more valuable as well. To make it even more "valuable," they've brought on some top artists to illustrate the stories -- so even if you read them for free online, there's now more value in buying the physical book to have the physical artwork as well.

Filed Under: book, business models, economics, infinite goods, significant objects, stories

Success Of Free D&D Online Leads To Free Lord Of The Rings Online, Too

from the good-to-see dept

Slashdot points us to the news that Turbine is now planning to offer their Lord of the Rings Online as free to play starting this fall. This follows last year's decision to turn Dungeons and Dragons online into a free offering, which actually resulted in a massive increase in revenue. Nice to see them expanding this to other areas.

What may be more interesting here is that this decision comes soon after Warner Bros. (the studio) bought Turbine. Warner Bros., as a movie studio, isn't exactly known for embracing "free," so it's nice to see that they're actually okay with expanding this program. Maybe they'll actually learn something to take back into the other parts of the business...

Filed Under: business models, d&d, free, lord of the rings, online games
Companies: turbine, warner bros.

Planet Money Crew Merges T-Shirts And Journalism

from the hey,-that-sounds-familiar! dept

Just a day after we announced our combined plans to save journalism and sell some t-shirts, the always excellent Planet Money team at NPR did an entire show about their own plans to get into the t-shirt business. Planet Money, we've noted in the past, has really taken the concept of experiential journalism to new levels, by not just reporting on certain subjects, but getting really involved in the topics to better understand them. This is great.

And, their latest plan is to get into the t-shirt business to better understand what it's like to manage such a business. Of course, we've noted in the past that there's actually a ton of money to be made in the t-shirt business, even as some of our critics have mocked our business model ideas as being limited to just selling "looooooots of t-shirts" and little else. In response, of course, we sold a ton of t-shirts with that as the slogan (I'm wearing mine now).

The Planet Money podcast about t-shirts highlights a few interesting points that again fit in with plenty of the things we talk about here. For example, they spend time talking to a "trends" expert, who notes that the big thing in selling high end luxury t-shirts, is to include a "story" with the shirt. It's the story that gets people willing to buy the shirt. She mentions how some of the shirts have huge tags that include a detailed story about where the shirt was made. This kicks off a discussion among the Planet Money crew about how their whole business is telling stories, and they should be able to tell a good story with their shirt. This actually reminds me of the Significant Objects project that we've written about a few times, where a group of fiction writers sold random trinkets on eBay... but did so with a fictional story about the object. That fictional story (given away for free) made the little trinkets much more valuable, and they were sold for much higher than nominal prices.

It was yet another example of an infinite good (the story) being used to make a scarce good (the trinket) much more valuable. It's neat to see the same thing happening in t-shirts as well, as it sort of ties a bunch of these different ideas together.

Oh, and one last thing. In the podcast, they discuss how high end t-shirts, with high quality cotton, can sell for over $200, and talk about how their own t-shirt, which they insist will be a hell of a lot nicer than your typical cheap NPR t-shirt, will probably be sold for about $50. Given all of this, I should note that our own t-shirts are also high quality American Apparel shirts that are crazy soft and comfy... and are offered at the bargain price of just $25... including a one-year subscription to the Techdirt crystal ball feature. It's a bargain. So, if you're interested in t-shirts and journalism, you can pick up our high-quality "paywall" t-shirt to make sure people have to pay you to keep talking: Or just sign up for our brainstorming event on saving journalism, where you'll get the t-shirt as well... and maybe we'll even figure out a way to discuss t-shirts and journalism.

Filed Under: business models, journalism, planet money, t-shirts

FTC Trying To Save Journalism Too... But It Seems To Think Journalism Is Old Newspapers

from the i'm-confused dept

As you may have heard, last week, we announced a fun event that we've put together, coming up on June 16th, called Techdirt Saves* Journalism, which you can sign up for here: Of course, we're not the only ones looking to "save" journalism. Google, which is sponsoring and hosting our event is, looking to "save" journalism too. And, not to be left out, the FTC is working on its own plans for "saving" journalism, as well. In fact, it's holding a roundtable discussion on the topic just one day before our get-together. Except... the FTC's initial discussion seems a bit suspect. It has put out a "staff discussion" (pdf) of various ideas that are being considered from a policy perspective: Jeff Jarvis summarizes the problems with the document nicely, in highlighting that they don't appear to be about helping journalism at all. Instead, they seem almost entirely focused on helping legacy newspaper companies survive. Perhaps tellingly, the document kicks off by both admitting and denying that very claim:

Although many of the issues confronting journalism cut across different news media platforms, such as broadcast television and radio, most of the discussion in this document will use the perspective of newspapers to exemplify the issues facing journalism as a whole. Studies have shown that newspapers typically provide the largest quantity of original news to consumers over any given period of time. We include within the term "newspapers" online news websites run either by an existing newspaper or by an online-only news organization. Other sources of news are also important, of course, and proposals for action should not favor newspapers over other news platforms.

That last sentence is the "denial" part, but it never seems to come up again. Many of the proposals would almost certainly massively favor newspapers over other platforms for no good reason other than the fact that some media folks are begging the government to set up laws that favor them over upstart competitors. It's a shame really. The FTC could have put out a document and a discussion that was focused on all of the compelling new business models and sources of reporting and journalism that are happening all over the place. Instead, it seems to just accept that such business models can't possibly produce enough revenue to matter and support the kind of journalism necessary.

While the FTC document goes to great pains to say that it's not clearly recommending any of these particular proposals at this point, the fact that things like expanding hot news is even listed as a possibility is downright scary. Expanding hot news is in no way about helping journalism. It's about stifling it.

All in all the problems with the document are pretty serious. It's an attempt to define the future by extrapolating the past. That's not how innovation happens. However, if anyone from the FTC would like to take a more forward-looking approach to enabling journalism in the modern era, they're welcome to attend our event...

Filed Under: business models, journalism
Companies: ftc

Joe Konrath Explains Why Authors Shouldn't Fear File Sharing

from the it-happens,-move-on dept

Simon was the first of a few of you to send over a blog post by author Joe Konrath discussing why he doesn't worry much about his books being available online via unauthorized file sharing avenues. The whole blog post is so reasonable and well argued that you really should just go read the whole thing, so here are a few snippets to get you interested:

People want to share files. There is this much file sharing going on for a reason. It's what people want. Fighting piracy is fighting human nature. This is a battle no one can win. Getting your undies in a bunch at the thought of someone copying your ebook is a waste of a good ulcer. Worry about some problem that eventually will be solved. Like world hunger. Or cancer. Or war. Those will be conquered before file sharing is....

There is ZERO reliable evidence that file-sharing hurts sales. A shared file does not equal a lost sale, any more than someone reading a library book is a lost sale.

The best part is a bit later in the post, where he tries to pre-empt the usual "but it's theft!!!!" arguments with a series of Q&As that read something like many of the comment exchanges we end up having here at Techdirt, by pointing out that it's not the same as stealing a tangible object, and even so it doesn't matter. He also takes on another popular argument made in our comments: but what if artists don't want to embrace new business models:

Q: But Joe, if everyone steals your ebooks, how will you make money?

A: Show me an artist bankrupted by piracy, and we'll revisit this question.

Q: No, seriously, in a future where everything is free, how will...

A: We're not in a future where everything is free. But I'll play the "let's pretend" game. Let's pretend that all ebooks are free. How will writers make money? The same way all media makes money. Advertising, merchandising, and licensing.

Q: But I don't want ads in ebooks.

A: I don't want ads in anything. But that's how capitalism works. Deal with it.

Again, the whole thing is a worthwhile read, but highlights a key point that we keep trying to make over and over again. So many keep focusing in on the whole "piracy!" aspect, and that's such a huge waste of time. Why focus on trying to stop something you don't like, when you can put your energy into creating a positive situation that you do like? Why focus on trying to punish people you don't like, when you have so many opportunities to happily engage with people you do like?

Filed Under: authors, business models, file sharing, joe konrath

ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important

from the wow dept

Michael Scott points us to one of the best summaries I've seen of the state of the music business today -- published in the ABA Journal. It's an incredibly balanced piece, that really does carefully present both sides of the story on a variety of issues, and presents actual evidence, which suggests the RIAA is blowing smoke on a lot of its claims. The piece kicks off by highlighting that the music industry appears to be thriving, and then noting that it's not the same as the recording industry, which has been struggling.

Much of the piece does present the RIAA's viewpoint on things, such as the idea that the legal strategy the labels have taken has been a "success." However, it follows it up by questioning what kind of success it has been when more people are file sharing and more services are available for those who want to file share. From there it segues into a discussion on "three strikes" and ACTA, which includes the jaw-dropping claim from an RIAA general counsel that "three strikes" was "never even put on the table." I've heard from numerous ISP folks who say that's not true at all. However, the article does a good job (gently) ripping apart the RIAA's claims, with evidence to the contrary, and does a beautiful job digging deep into ACTA to show how the text might not explicitly require three strikes, but is worded in such a way as to make it hard to qualify for safe harbors without implementing three strikes.

The latter part of the article then focuses on how the music industry really is booming, and how more people are making music, and there are lots of opportunities for musicians to do well these days, even without relying on copyright law. The arguments made (and the people and studies quoted) won't be new to regular Techdirt readers, but it really is a very strong piece, targeted at lawyers (many of whom may not have realized some of these details). For example:

If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn't really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians

I certainly don't agree with everything in the article, and there are a few statements from the RIAA folks that could have been challenged more directly. But, on the whole, it's definitely one of the better articles I've seen looking at the music industry from the perspective of the legal profession that doesn't automatically drop into the "but we must protect copyrights!" argument from the outset.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, music, music industry