The Cure's Robert Smith Continues To Claim Free Doesn't Work

from the um.-but-it-does? dept

We recently pointed out the statements made by The Cure's Robert Smith, insisting that business models involving giving away music for free, such as the one used by Radiohead, couldn't work. This seemed rather odd, given that not only did it work fantastically well for Radiohead, we've been seeing it work for a lot of different bands for many years. So, to claim that it simply can't work was blatantly false and easily proven as wrong. Given that... you might think Robert Smith would recognize the fallacy of his logic, admit he was wrong and maybe learn a little. Or not...

An anonymous reader points us to Smith's blog post in response to the criticism of his statements where he digs in to repeat the original, easily proven as false, claim and calls those who disagree with him "cretins." Or, rather, "CRETINS" since he uses the CAPS LOCK button to full effect (though, appears to have a faulty space bar at times). Oddly, to get around the fact that the model did, in fact, work for Radiohead, he pretends he didn't say that it couldn't work for Radiohead (though, that's exactly what he did say), but claims he actually meant that it couldn't work for everyone else. Then he brushes off Radiohead's success by noting:

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS... INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

Masnick's law, anyone? Even that statement is somewhat self-contradictory. If the band is "famous" with a "huge and devoted fan base" then... um... why do they need to "build the brand"?

And, then, of course, he falls into that old fallacy that we see way too often:

IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

It really does amaze me how people's brains seem to stop as soon as "free" enters the picture. But, once again, for you first timers, just because you give one thing away for free, it does not mean you give everything away for free, and thus you earn your living selling those other things. But, of course, apparently anyone who uses logic and understands actual business models doesn't count:

AND QUITE HONESTLY

AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT

IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST

I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!

Fair enough. But when plenty of actual artists are understanding this and making plenty of money in doing so, it seems rather silly to ignore the points they're making, doesn't it. Or... wait, is Radiohead not an artist? And, then, there's the final sign off:

I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUTTHERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?

Well, I don't get paid anything specifically to write this blog. But I do get paid, in part thanks to giving away all this content for free. Just as Smith could get paid by embracing a business model where he gives his music away for free...

Filed Under: business models, free, music, radiohead, robert smith, the cure

Cure Singer Blasts Radiohead, Saying Name-Your-Own-Price Can't Work; Apparently Unaware That It Did Work

from the it's-not-like-the-info-isn't-out-there... dept

While we're not huge fans of the pure "give it away and pray" name-your-own-price business model, it still seems pretty ridiculous to see people like The Cure's Robert Smith blasting Radiohead for its experiment, claiming "it can't work" (thanks to Chris, for sending this in). Smith is uninformed on a number of different fronts. First, so many people get so focused on the "name your own price" part, that they forget that wasn't the only business model at all. That was just a part of the business model. At the same time they announced the pay-what-you-want downloads, they also announced an impressive boxset that cost quite a bit. Furthermore, contrary to Smith's assertion that "it can't work," it did work. In fact, it worked phenomenally well. The band sold more albums than it had in the past and it made more money. Actually, as the article points out, that Radiohead album did much, much better than the Cure's last album. Oops.

All of that info came out months ago. Apparently, Smith was too bothered "violently disagreeing" with Radiohead to notice how much money the band was pulling in. He also might want to brush up on his economics. His explanation for disagreeing with Radiohead confuses price and value drastically:

"You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense. If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan...."

Which, of course, has it backwards. If the music had no value, no one would want it, free or not. And, it's not that fans are "creating the value" in setting the price, it's that they're deciding how much they want to reward the artist. That's all. Perhaps instead of spending so much effort violently disagreeing, Smith should spend some time understanding the actual business models being put to good use by many different musicians, sometimes allowing them to do much better than the Cure... even if the music is "free."

Filed Under: business models, free, music, radiohead, robert smith, the cure