Defensive Posturing: E-Book Author Takes On The 'Old Guard' At Crime Writing Festival [UPDATED]

from the the-more-things-change,-the-more-they-wish-things-wouldn't dept

[UPDATE: Some comments (namely Steve Mosby's and David Hewson's) have pointed out that there is more to this story than simply the post by Stephen Leather I used as the basis for this one. While other accounts of this event differ slightly, the overview remains pretty much the same. However, there is a glaring omission from Leather's post that is mentioned in others. David Hewson's take on the event, as well as Mosby's, mention that Leather admitted to using sock puppets to comment in forums to drum up business for himself. This, in and of itself, would be unpleasant enough. But there appears to be evidence that Leather's sock puppetry goes beyond simple PR and into harassment of other writers, including writing one-star reviews on Amazon and setting up Twitter accounts in their names in order to, for lack of a better term, screw with them. This obviously goes far beyond shady PR tactics. 

While I believe that the points raised by Stephen Leather's post, as presented on his blog, are still valid, these other issues call Leather's character into question. I based this post solely on Leather's take which, in retrospect, was unwise. This gives the appearance that I (along with Techdirt) approve of these other actions or have simply chosen to disregard them. This is not the case. I was unaware of these aspects until they were raised in the comments, and that is no one's fault by my own.

I would encourage you to read the other postings to more fully round out this picture of Stephen Leather. Again, I feel the points he raised were valid but I do not want to give the impression of implicit approval of his other actions.]

There's something about disruption that stirs up a certain amount of animosity in those on the receiving end. It sometime seems to be almost a "fight-or-flight" response, brought on by those whose "sure thing" has become about as fiscally wise as "buying a home" or "selling the farm to buy Facebook shares."

E-book mystery writer Stephen Leather got to experience this phenomenon in person while visiting the three-day Harrogate Crime Writing Festival, with the dual purpose of rubbing elbows with other authors and adding some background for his upcoming e-book called Inspector Zhang Goes to Harrogate.

The "fun" began when Leather, at the behest of another author, appeared on a panel whose very name stacked the deck against him: "Wanted for Murder: the e-book." As pretty much the sole representative of e-publishing, Leather was outnumbered four-to-one, joining a publisher, another writer (with few e-book sales), an agent and a bookseller. Even with this huge advantage, the old guard couldn't keep itself from deploying mockery, ignorance and condescension when addressing Leather's comments.

What surprised me was how the audience seemed so set against cheap eBooks. Rather than taking my view that books are best sold at a price that readers find attractive, the general feeling of the audience seemed to be that books were already – as one man said – ‘cheap as chips’ while Norwegians had to pay £40 for one of Jo Nesbo’s books. When I explained that I had sold half a million eBooks last year, most of them for less than a quid, I was surprised to hear a few boos and hisses rather than the applause that I had expected.

Can you feel the hate? This doesn't sound like authors supporting other authors. This sounds like the tortured noises of a large animal backed into a corner by a previously unrecognized aggressor. I's now up against the wall, in an unfamiliar position, and unsure of what move to make next.

It gets simultaneously uglier and stupider from there:

The most surreal moment for me came when the President of the Publisher’s Association, Ursula Mackenzie, was trying to defend their policy of maintaining eBooks at a high price. Basically she was saying that books needed to maintain their value and that 20p and free eBooks needed to be stamped on.

I understand her view, but I’m a big fan of selling eBooks at lower prices providing you can get high volumes of sales. And I’m happy enough to give books away if it helps to bring in new readers.

The old argument about "devaluation" is now in play. No matter how many times it's stated, it's still nothing more than a willful misreading of the situation. Unknown (or unsigned) writers selling cheap e-books doesn't devalue your product. Innovations and the removal of barriers lower the costs associated with your product, especially in regards to the digital version. Publishers seem to think that consumers should pay physical prices for digital items. It's not a matter of "devaluing" anything. It's a matter of publishers overvaluing their goods in order to preserve the margins they're accustomed to.

When faced with this fact, publishers and certain authors start throwing out statements concerning the costs of editing and marketing books as the reason why their e-book prices are unable to square with reality. Publishers also use these same statements to explain why they're "entitled" to the largest cut of the proceeds. Leather had his own thoughts on this, but no one's interested:

Mark turned to the conversation around to the cost of books and how much went to the publisher, and asked Ursula to justify why the publisher’s took the lion’s share. She put forward the old arguments about editing and marketing and I tried to explain that with eBooks, an author with a large fan base can use fans to edit and proof-read. Everyone seemed to think that meant I thought writers could do away with editors, and of course that’s not the case. But not every writer needs a hard edit, some writers need little more than proof-reading and fact-checking and that can be done through fans. And my Jack Nightingale series is edited by a full-time editor on my agent's staff so those books need very little editing by my publisher. Yes, I know that some authors need a lot of editing. But I don't.

No one claims that Author A's strategy in the e-book game will work for Author B, but the publishers seem to think that their strategies and methods will work for all authors and that these associated costs will always exist (at increasing price points), hence the "need" for higher prices.

Leather also discussed piracy in a reasonable fashion, stating that he felt pirates "helped market his books." This was greeted by negativity ("...I thought I was about to be lynched...") and name-calling. Pointing out that DRM doesn't work and negatively affects paying customers was greeted with complete denial by the publisher's representative. When Leather questioned why a writer who sells most of their books through Amazon (not exactly known for leaving much on the negotiating table) would need an agent, agents in attendance began firing off "nasty tweets" about him.

But there's one moment in Leather's post that stands out from all the rest of the petty defensiveness of the panel, and gives an indication that some very fundamental misunderstandings of economics, consumer behavior and basic math might be what's holding back certain publishers and authors from seeing how Leather's strategy might work for them.

So I explain to Ursula – and the audience – that I can write a short story in five days and am happy to sell that at the Amazon minimum of 72p which generates me an income of 25p. At this point Ursula – who runs one of the biggest publishing houses in the UK – asked me “so you’re happy to work for 5p a day, are you?” The audience laughed and clapped, and I was frankly gob-smacked. I couldn’t understand why they hadn’t seen the fallacy in her comment. She was assuming that I spent five days writing a story and then sold one copy. She can’t possibly have believed that, could she? 

She might. Many publishers and authors might. So many of them seemed completely focused on making the largest profit they can from the fewest possible sales. It seems like a good idea, but, as has been shown here before, lowering your prices can increase both sales and your net income. Keeping your prices artificially high in hopes of earning more per sale can cost you more in the long run. Leather isn't selling one copy at 5p. He's selling thousands.

Of course I don’t work for 5p a day. My Inspector Zhang stories sell about five or six hundred copies a month. Each. So one story sells 6,000 copies a year. So over the next ten years it could sell 60,000 copies which means I’d get £15,000, which is £3,000 a day and that’s probably more than she gets paid.

It doesn't get much more condescending than that. Assuming that 72p purchases will never add up to "real" money is keeping a lot of publishers and authors from making as much as they could. There's a hint of snobbishness to that line of thought: that somehow self-publishers who sell at low prices are lesser artists and should be mocked, pitied or ignored.

So be it. When the walls come crashing down around you, I'm sure the gate you've spent so much time maintaining will make all the difference in the world. And while you're admiring the distance between you and these upstart outsiders, these upstart outsiders will be more than happy to be mocked and pitied all the way to the bank.

Filed Under: business models, ebooks, mathematics, pricing, stephen leather

Sometimes The Business Model Is The Marketing

from the and-that's-not-a-bad-thing dept

When we talk about cool new business models, one thing we often hear from critics is the attempt to dismiss some of the more creative ideas as mere "gimmicks." I think that severely misses the point. For new business models to work, they need to also reach fans/customers in an effective way. And, sometimes, that means that the business model is part of the marketing campaign. In fact, I'd argue that much of Kickstarter and its success stories is based (in part) on this premise. The business model and the marketing campaign bleed into each other -- which is why it's often useful to have parts of your business model be things that will get people talking about you. It's also why we have a $100 million offer in our (soon to be relaunched!) store. While no one bought it (yet!), it was definitely the item people spoke about the most.

And, of course, none of this has to be purely digital. My friend Tom sent over this great story about Neal Gottlieb, who runs an ice cream business that has some stores and a factory -- most of which involves your everyday ice cream sales. However, he's also got some offerings for some... higher end clientele:

Q: So what's the deal with the $3,333.33 banana split you have on the Napa store's menu? Are you out of your mind?

A: I put it up not really as a joke, but for something fun for people to read while they're waiting in line.

I really hate the most expensive (dot dot dot) when most of the expense is for the serving dish, like the most expensive cocktail that comes in a crystal chalice. We serve the most expensive sundae, but the food cost is one-third of the price. It's three scoops of organic ice cream; a banana, organic of course; and is topped with three syrups made from three extremely rare dessert wines - a 1960s vintage Port, a Chateau D'Yquem and a German Trockenbeerenauslese. It also comes with a cellist who will play anything you want while you eat the sundae.

Ah, yes. Don't forget the cellist. Though, I'd argue that if his complaint about others is the price of the serving dish, there may be a valid complaint when part of the cost is the musical accompaniment. That said, this is not the most expensive item on the menu:

Q: What other expensive ice cream packages do you offer?

A: We offer a trip to Mount Kilimanjaro with a real guide and me. Once we climb the mountain, we will chip away at the glacial ice and carry it back to camp, where we will churn as much ice cream as the customer can eat. The trip includes first-class airfare, five-star accommodations, a $10,000 donation to a nonprofit African environmental charity and a souvenir T-shirt for $60,000 for one and $85,000 for two.

So far we've had no takers.

However, one person has purchased our "100 pints personally delivered." That's when I wear a green tuxedo and deliver the ice cream anywhere in the U.S. for $3,333.33.

The full article has a bunch more details and is well worth the read, so go check it out.

Now, of course, some people will (again) say that this is merely a "gimmick." And perhaps you can dismiss it as that. But I think it goes much deeper. It's showing how the business model itself can be both a part of the marketing and how you connect with fans and customers. In this day and age, part of succeeding is in standing out. Doing the same thing that everyone else does won't get you that far, so why not innovate and be creative on the business model side of things as well? I'm sure Gottlieb makes great ice cream (I've heard good things, though I haven't tried it), and so our usual critics will insist that he absolutely must only focus on that and that alone. But I think most sensible people realize that you can create a great product and do a good job marketing it while also being creative with your business models. And none of those things take away from any other part.

Anyway, should anyone decide to take us up on our $100 million offer, I plan to use some of the money to go to Mount Kilimanjaro with Mr. Gottlieb.

Filed Under: business models, ice cream, marketing

If This Is What Big Publishers Call Promotion, No Wonder They're In Trouble

from the take-the-money-and-run-(your-own-business) dept

Uber-successful blogger Penelope Trunk took the long route to self-publishing, beginning as a blogger before being picked up by an unnamed major publisher before making the decision to self-publish (and cashing a large advance check along the way). As more and more authors have discovered, the advantages of self-publishing (control of their work; more profit) are increasingly outweighing the disadvantages (handling your own promotion; sourcing your own editing, etc.).

In a blog post on July 9th, Trunk announced she had a new book coming out, a situation not remarkable in itself (bloggers crank out books all the time). However, two years ago, Trunk had sold this same book to a major publisher, and that's where her trouble began:

So I sold my book to a mainstream publisher and they sucked. I am going to go into extreme detail about how much they sucked, so I'm not going to tell you the name of the publisher because I got a lot of money from them. I'm just going to tell you that the mainstream publisher is huge, and if you have any respect left for print publishing, you respect this publisher. But you will not at the end of this post.

Now, we've all heard how major publishers can be annoying to deal with. Between pushing back release dates, locking up parts of writers' catalogues, lacing e-books with DRM and other such dickery, major publishers have earned just about as much respect (around these parts, anyway) as the major labels and major studios. While many authors have become successful within the system, the evidence points to the sad fact that the "system" is sorely in need of drastic change. Sadder still is the fact that there seems to be no rush to meet that need.

Trunk's experience with the major publisher didn't take a turn for the worse until the discussion of promotion began. What follows are some of the most unintentionally hilarious "promotion" ideas I've ever heard bandied about by people specifically tasked with the job of promotion:

To be clear, I wrote my book, and they paid me my advance, in full. Three months before the publication date, the PR department called me up to "coordinate our efforts." But really, their call was just about giving me a list of what I was going to do to publicize the book. I asked them what they were going to do. They had no idea. Seriously.

Well, that's just terrible. A PR department, whose very existence is predicated on public relations, drawing a blank when asked directly what they, as employees of the power major publisher, were going to do. And then, they had "ideas" -- the kind of ideas that are fully deserving of the quotation marks around the word:

They did not have a written plan, or any list, and when I pushed one of the people on this first call to give me examples of what the publishers would do to promote my book, she said "newsgroups."

I assumed I was misunderstanding. I said, "You mean like newsgroups from the early 90s? Those newsgroups? USENET?"

"Yes."

"Who is part of newsgroups anymore?"

"We actually have really good lists because we have been working with them for so long."

"People in newsgroups buy books? You are marketing my book through newsgroups?"

There's nothing like holding a conversation in 2012 with someone who still thinks it's two decades earlier, especially if this is the first idea that comes to mind with all the other social media options available. Maybe if Trunk's book was targeted towards the interests of newsgroups or had sprung from there, this might make sense. (And it might even give the PR team a bit of street cred, if they did still hold some sort of grassroots power in 20-year old newsgroups.) But this sounds more like a case of blowing the dust off the floppy and running a copy of "The List" off on the nearest dot matrix, rather than a savvy move based on years of carefully cultivating an online following.

There's more:

At the next phone call, I asked again about how they were going to publicize my book. I told them that I'm happy to do it on my blog, but I already know I can sell tons of books by writing about my book on my blog. So they need to tell me how they are going to sell tons of books.

"LinkedIn."

"What? Where are you selling books on LinkedIn?"

"One of the things we do is build buzz on our fan page."

I went ballistic. There is no publishing industry fan page that is good enough to sell books. No one goes to fan pages for publishers because publishers are not household brand names. The authors are. That's how publishing works.

Something that the major publishers seem to have in common with other artistic venues saddled with the word "major" is the fact that these entities tend to greatly overvalue their brand and undervalue the artists signed to it. Major studios still seem to believe that people give a single damn what studio produced their favorite movie, failing to realize that people are drawn to movies for the actors, directors, writers, stories, explosions, etc. -- anything but the studio itself. No one not employed by the studios themselves walks around talking up the latest "Sony Pictures Studio" film. The same goes for the recording industry. While certain labels have gained (and sometimes lost) cachet over the years based on their stable of artists, it's still about the artists. People may love Sub Pop, but if Sub Pop began cranking out albums by just anybody, it would swiftly lose its respectability. Obviously, the same goes for major publishers, who somehow believe that readers care whether it's Random House or Harper-Collins that just put out a book by their favorite author.

Oh. Yeah. There's more. Trunk was asked to meet one more time with the publicity team. This culminated in a long Powerpoint presentation where Trunk learned all she wanted to know about major publishers -- none of it good. Here's what she learned:

• Print publishers have no idea who is buying their books.

Amazon knows their customers. Publishers don't. Amazon won't give them the information and what little the publishers can draw together demographically comes from brick-and-mortar sales. This is a handicap, to be sure, but the publisher Trunk dealt with compounded this problem by performing impossible mathematics:

When I pointed this out to my publisher, they told me that for my book, they expected to sell more than 50% of the books in independent bookstores. And then they showed me slides on how they market to people offline. They did not realize that I ran an independent bookstore while I was growing up. It was the family business. I ran numbers for them to show them that if they sold 50% of the sales they estimated for my book, they would single-handedly change the metrics of independent booksellers. That's how preposterous their estimates were.

• Print publishers have no idea how to market online.

Without access to online data or the interest in using what they do have, publishers fly blind, relying on what used to work to continue working, including such Pleistocene-era tactics as "TV spots and back-of-book blurbs." They also seem blasé about actually connecting with their readers, something that is proven to leave you on the outside in a digital, connected world.

Print publishers have been too arrogant to learn how to run a grassroots, metrics-based publicity campaign online. They cannot tell which of their online efforts works and which doesn't because they can't track sales. They don't know how many people they reach.

• The profit margins in mainstream publishing are so low they are almost nonexistent.

This remains a problem when your flagship product is a physical item with limited distribution points and the associated costs of printing, distributing, warehousing, remainders, etc. Digital products carry none of these costs, allowing authors (and publishers) to make more per book even at a fraction of the price. How bad are the margins? Consider this factoid:

The most breathtaking example, I think, of how terrible margins are, is that if I sell my own book with a link to my publisher, I make a little less than $1 per book. If I sell Guy Kawasaki's book  on Amazon, I get a little more than $1 per book in their affiliate program. So it's more profitable to me to use my blog to sell someone else's book than to sell the book I published with a mainstream publisher.

No matter how much you might believe in the power of a major publisher, it's got to knock a little wind out of your sails to realize that authors can make more selling other people's books through the much-hated Amazon. Whatever power remains in old school publishing is swiftly being undercut by their inability to move forward at the pace of their market.

This whole debacle culminated with the PR peacemaker threatening to dump Trunk's book if she didn't play nice with the clueless promotional team. So much for calling her bluff.

I said, "Great. Because I think you are incompetent. And also, you have already paid me. It's a great deal for me."

Trunk went off, did six months of research on the ebook industry, and took her book to Hyperink, an independent publisher which specializes in helping bloggers convert their blogging into books. Click through for her whole post, which contains some more devastating insights into the publishing industry as well as a rundown on the "New Rules of Book Publishing."

Filed Under: business models, marketing, penelope trunk, publishers, publishing

Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'

from the *according-to-the-recording-industry dept

Well, what do we have here? Another artist operating outside the constraints of the recording industry and yet, against all odds, making money? Probably too good to be true. He's built a huge following on known pirate site YouTube and his first two royalty checks totaled over $200,000, but the question remains: how can Alex Day make money with such a wrong-headed approach?

The Tunecore blog gets to the bottom of this Alex Day sensation. In a day and age where no one can sell music, Day is doing exactly that. Not only is he selling music, but he's doing many things completely wrong, if conventional thinking is anything to go by. Just how successful is Alex Day?

Alex Day, a 23 year-old musician from Essex, England is focused on releasing music that puts listeners in a good mood. And it seems to be working. He has over 500,000 YouTube subscribers, over 500,000 songs sold, almost 100 million youtube views, and was the subject of two recent Forbes articles.

How does he do it? By breaking every rule in the "How Things Are Done Around Here" book.

First rule broken?

Staggered/Windowed Releases Are Good

Day has released three (3)(!!!) singles simultaneously, ruthlessly "cannibalizing" his own market. How's that working out for him?

[I]t seems to have worked so far. The songs are well on their way to selling 150,000 copies. Just ONE of the videos has already done more than 300,000 views, and the three have been streamed more than 100,000 times on Bandcamp.

You'll Never Be Famous Without A Major Label's Help

It’s basically perseverance. [I]’ve been doing it six years, and only in the last year have people really started paying attention to my music. I make sure I upload at least one video a week, keep my stuff consistent and entertaining, and don’t talk about music all the time because people would get bored.

No One Takes YouTube "Artists" Seriously

Well I have Twitter and Facebook pages like everyone else in the world, but really it is just YouTube. I don’t have a label, a manager, a press team, a radio plugger, an agent, a publicist, not even a music producer. I make my own music, my own music videos, and YouTube is how I get the word out on those things.

Control Every Use Of Your IP

I noticed on your site that you’re very vocal about encouraging your fans to use your music in their videos, projects, talents shows, and whatever else they’d like. What’s your philosophy behind this?

Is that not the norm? I thought everyone would want to do that. I guess it’s just as I’ve said, I want as many people as possible to hear and enjoy my music, and if people are using it in their own projects, that’s a good way of sharing my songs with people. As long as you’re not taking the credit for the song and you’re doing something new with it (not just re-uploading the song with the artwork to YouTube when I already have a video there of my own to showcase it), you can help yourself.

Full Albums Are The Only True Way To Create/Enjoy Music

Stop recording albums. I understand that an album can be a great form of art in its own right when all the songs are designed for it and they all weave into each other and they have a concept. Great—but most don’t, most artists don’t write like that, and with the cherry-picking available on iTunes, there’s no point bundling them together. Just focus on making one great song. Keep writing and recording until you have one great song. Then go from there. You only need one great song to make it.

Real Artists Don't Need To Connect With Fans Or Make Music People Enjoy

I make music people enjoy and they buy it... That’s my big trick. If I was only doing it for fame, I could sign with a label. If I was only doing it for money, I could churn out rubbish every two weeks. But I take my time and put out quality stuff I’m proud of, for the love of making great music and sharing it with an audience—the more people that hear it, the better. I want to make things that people can love.

With this many rules broken, it appears that Alex Day is yet another solitary example of business models that won't work for anyone else. 

Filed Under: alex day, independent artists, music, rules, sharing, success, videos

BitTorrent Announces Plans To Help Artists Get Paid While Giving Their Creations Away For Free

from the pira¢y-is-the-new-paid-content dept

In many people's minds (especially those in certain industries), the word "torrent" is synonymous with piracy. This has obviously caused a bit of problem for BitTorrent, Inc., the parent company of BitTorrent client, uTorrent. Despite the fact that uTorrent has legitimate uses, most members of the press and politicians continue to link BitTorrent with the act of copyright infringement, and in some cases, seem to believe that The Pirate Bay and BitTorrent are either related businesses, if not actually the same entity.

Following the footsteps of Youtube, BitTorrent is experimenting with ways to help artists make money while still giving away their work for free. The first experiment goes live today. Torrentfreak has the details:

The idea is simple. BitTorrent Inc. helps artists to promote a bundle of free content to their 150 million users. This bundle includes a piece of sponsored software such as a media player or anti-virus package that can be installed as an option. When a user installs the free software, both the artist and BitTorrent get a cut of the proceeds.

“We believe we can make digital distribution even more viable for creators and fans. So, beginning now, we’ll be testing new ways to drive profitability for creators while delivering even more meaningful media experiences for our users,” BitTorrent CEO Eric Klinker comments on the announcement.

The first artist featured is DJ Shadow, who's releasing a package of exclusives and some sponsored software. Hidden Transmissions From the MPC Era (1992-1996) will be promoted to existing users with banner and text ads and new users will be given that option when installing uTorrent. Getting DJ Shadow on board with free distribution and torrent services is a bit of coup on BitTorrent's part, considering he's made statements in the past decrying what he perceives to be a continuing devaluation of music by file sharing.

[I]f you’re holding your breath, waiting for me to boost my cool-quotient by giving my music away for free, it’s not going to happen. The fact is that I feel my music has value. You may disagree, and that’s fine. But I know how much energy I put into what I do, and how long it takes me to make something I’m satisfied with. Giving that away just feels wrong to me. It’s not about money per se; I can donate a large sum of money to charity and not think twice, but I won’t give my art away. I’d rather sell it to 100 people who value it as I do than give it away to 1000 who could care less. That’s MY choice.

I point out this statement not to "name and shame" DJ Shadow or as a cheap dig at what could be perceived as a hypocritical act, but rather to show that BitTorrent's experiment would seem to have a chance of succeeding. Given DJ Shadow's stance, it's highly unlikely that he would have signed on to give away his music for free (and linked his name with a service often mentioned in the same breath as "copyright infringement") if he didn't see legitimate potential in the plan.

BitTorrent obviously hopes that showing artists the monetary potential of the uTorrent platform will garner it more recognition as a legitimate platform. Several more campaigns are due to roll out this summer, with BitTorrent closely tracking the response to each experiment.

Filed Under: ad-supported, business models, dj shadow, free, music, utorrent
Companies: bittorrent

Making Your Kickstarter Even More Fun: Marian Call Turns Kickstarter Into European Adventure Quest

from the neato dept

A little over two years ago, we wrote about singer Marian Call and the fact that she did a bunch of experiments that helped her connect with fans and give them a reason to buy. As we noted, what she demonstrated is that it takes a lot of experiments to figure out what "works" for a particular creator and their fans. Some ideas will fail, and some will succeed. Since that time, I've checked in here and there on her career and it seems to be going great. I'd missed, however, that she launched a Kickstarter campaign last month, and thankfully Aaron deOliveira clued me in, thanks to a blogpost on Popehat about Marian Call's Kickstarter campaign, which has a few really cool features. So many artists are doing Kickstarter campaigns these days, that there's usually not that much to write about with them. But Marian (not surprisingly, given her willingness to test out "crazy" ideas, decided to take things a bit further with Kickstarter, and turn it into even more of a game than it normally is.

That is, she created Marian Call's European Adventure Quest, in which she effectively "gamified" Kickstarter, such that the more she earned, the more levels would be "unlocked." The main idea was that she would tour Europe and record a live album, but the more she raised, the more places she would visit and the more cover songs she would do (she usually does originals, but people have requested covers, and she was worried about the licensing fees if she didn't raise money in support). She's even got some nice retro video game graphics to show her progress: The campaign is actually just about to end (within a few hours), but it just recently surpassed $55,000, which means that she'll be performing and recording "Particle Man" by They Might Be Giants... and she'll be doing it live at CERN, which is so awesomely appropriate.

One of the things we get concerned about, at times, is that people get so focused on how others have been successful with things like Kickstarter that they stop being additionally creative on their own and merely copy others' projects. But Marian is showing how you can continue to be creative above and beyond the basics of Kickstarter, and do so in way that is fun and better connects you with fans (while also getting those fans to support you in a big way). It's always great to see these kinds of inspiring examples.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, european adventure, fun, gamification, marian call, music
Companies: kickstarter

Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content

from the that's-how-it-works dept

There's an interesting Technology Review article about a new YouTube video campaign called ThinkR, which is trying to create videos of smart people talking about interesting things (think sort of TED-like, but a little flashier. and at least of the ones I've seen, with less substance). However, the Tech Review article highlights the oddity of an ad firm owned by a media firm making interesting content:

Here's how Radical Media describes its "entertainment" division:

AS THE LINE BETWEEN advertising and entertainment blurs, our Entertainment division is a solution to a changing media landscape. In conjunction with our Design + Digital Group and Integrated Marketing team, we work closely with our agency, network, and brand partners to integrate their visions into the DNA of the content we create.

In addition to films and music videos, Radical Media also makes television commercials and, well, "transmedia."

Here's where it gets really confusing: While Radical Media is essentially an advertising firm, it was purchased in 2010 by the RTL Group, which owns 46 television channels and 9 radio stations and is Europe's largest mass media company. In other words, a media company owns an advertising firm that moonlights as a media company. Huzzah!

It goes on to note that some of their videos... have advertisements before them, and it's possible that "Radical Media produced both the "advertisement" and the "content"!" Of course, I'm not so sure why or if that's all that surprising. As we've been pointing out for years, it's not just that advertising is content, but that content is advertising as well. Good content always advertises something. Bad content doesn't advertise anything, even if it's designed as an "advertisement."

Having an "ad agency" that knows how to make good content, first and foremost, is a lot more important than having a firm that knows how to make a "good advertisement." If you can make good content, you can figure out how it advertises something and act accordingly. If you're just focused on making a good advertisement, you'll often make bad content. So I actually think it's a good thing that ad companies and media companies are focusing on content first. I recognize the risk that many people worry about: that this makes "content" into something that's more "advertorial," but that's not what we're discussing here. It's the exact opposite. Purely "advertorial" content isn't good content. It's deceptive and annoying. When the mix of content and advertising works, it's because people want the content and actively seek it out (think Old Spice Man) rather than "hiding" an ad in the content -- which is more likely to turn people off.

Somehow, these two ideas too often get conflated. But if everyone's focused on creating good content first and foremost, that seems like a good thing -- even if that content comes from "an advertising" firm.

Filed Under: advertising, content, marketing, thinkr
Companies: radical media

Could Louis C.K. Make His TV Show Using The Direct-To-Fan Model?

from the yup,-probably dept

Last week, in one of their daily roundups, the folks at AVClub made a passing comment about Louis C.K.'s cable television show Louie:

you still have to subscribe to a cable package that features FX in order to watch the season premiere of Louie tonight—but the way things are going, he’ll eventually find a way around that as well.

It's half a joke, and not intended as a serious near-future prediction, but it nevertheless raises an interesting question: have we reached the point where a show of that caliber could be made independently? Louie is a fairly inexpensive show—the season two budget was $300,000 per episode, with an additional $200,000 spent on a particularly ambitious outing, so that season cost a little over $4-million. C.K. has leveraged his network of friends (and quasi-enemies) in the comedy industry, plus lots of production shortcuts and personal licensing deals for music, to accomplish some impressive feats with that cash—and the show is widely praised by critics and fans (though there are dissenters). Moreover, unlike some shows that arguably benefit from the design-by-committee nature of some TV networks, Louie is already helmed entirely by C.K., who has almost complete creative control.

So... We know Louis C.K. pulled $1 million in just a few days by selling a single comedy special directly to fans. We know he's made $6 million in a week selling tickets to his tour. We know creators can raise millions on Kickstarter. We've seen established Hollywood talent combine crowdfunding with private investment to escape the studio system. There's little doubt that, with some combination of these models and other innovative ideas, someone like Louis C.K. could put together a show like Louie without any network support and distribute it entirely through the internet (and any TV networks that wanted to license it—on his terms).

I'm not suggesting Louis C.K. has any particular desire or reason to do this with Louie right now—it's my understanding that FX has been extremely supportive and treated him really well. But, realistically, how long will it take before someone does this? All the mechanisms are in place, or nearly so, and the media buzz around things like Kickstarter and C.K.'s direct-sale experiments has inspired a lot of entertainers to start considering alternative business models. It could even be C.K. himself who eventually leads the way again: while Louie is going great right now, he frequently mentions in both his comedy and interviews that he knows the show and his current status won't last forever—and I can't help but assume that part of the reason he's been running these recent sales experiments is that he's a very smart guy who sees what's happening in the industry and is trying to future-proof his career. If something were to happen and Louie was cancelled prematurely, I wouldn't be surprised to see C.K. and his fans finding a way to keep it going on their own. Though he hasn't actually said as much, a recent interview suggests the possibility can't be far from his mind:

The show has been a precious thing to me, and it’s been something I’m horribly grateful for. It’s just such a big deal to me that I’m getting to do this. I’m aware of how fleeting it is. I’m aware that, at best, it’ll go eight years, and that a year after those eight years are over, it’ll feel like a distant memory. I’m aware of that.

That’s one reason that I’m working really hard on it. I’m physically pretty banged up from this season from shit that I did. I fucking jumped into a boat that was 10 feet off a dock, and I really hurt my knee. I’ve taken such a beating. But I do it because I know I’m not going to get an opportunity to do this for very long. This is going to feel like it was only a few years as soon as it’s over. I’m trying to really slow down time while it’s going on. And it’s really important to me that I earn it, that I earn what I’ve got in front of me by doing the show as well as possible. So that’s how I feel about it. It’s a big fucking deal. The web thing was a huge euphoria. It was a crazy feeling. It was like physically altering. Looking at my phone and watching the sales come, like a thousand per fucking minute, was insane. I was in a bathroom at LAX, looking at the sales for the web thing on my phone, and I started laughing. I couldn’t control it. And I realized I was laughing like Laurence Olivier when he’s getting his diamonds in the bank in Marathon Man. [Laughs.] He just starts giggling, like, “I can’t believe what’s happening here.” And I had a similar moment like that these last two days, because I put all these tickets on sale [for the upcoming tour] on the Internet in the same way, and it’s crazy. It’s gangbusters. I mean, half the tour is sold out, and we’ve added shows in like eight cities.

Critics of new entertainment business models like to suggest that quality content can't be produced without the financial backing that can only come from studios, networks, record labels and other big businesses, and they tend to dismiss every counter-example as somehow inferior art—but that's an increasingly untenable position. Not only is quality content already being produced in new ways, but the stage is set for even bigger and more expensive projects. And considering how new some of these models are and how rapidly they've grown, if we're already at the point where a show like Louie could probably be made outside the traditional ecosystem, is it really so inconceivable that one day in the near future even things like Game of Thrones and the red-herring of the $200 million movie could break free as well? A Kickstarter for a movie that hits the hundreds of millions sounds impossible now—but it wasn't that long ago that $10-million for a watch, $3 million for a video game or $1 million for an album were considered just as unrealistic. And that's just Kickstarter, not direct sales of the finished product or any of the other moneymaking opportunities that a piece of entertainment creates. When you think about it that way, it seems like it's only a matter of time.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, direct to fan, louie, louis ck
Companies: fx, kickstarter

Louis CK's Direct Tour Sales: Over $6 Million In 1 Week, Scalping Drops From 25% To Below 1%

from the not-bad dept

We recently wrote about Louis CK's latest experiment in being open, human and awesome and connecting with his fans: selling his entire tour directly from his own site at a flat price (no service fees, nothing) of $45. One of the "features" of that offering was also an attempt to cut down on scalpers. There is at least some recognition that this means leaving money on the table and, potentially, making things a little more complicated than they might otherwise be. However, Louis seems to recognize that the benefit here is making most fans a lot happier with more reasonably priced shows.

And, so far, it all appears to be working. Louis sent an update on both ticket sales info and scalpers to Laughspin. You should go read the whole thing there, but there were a couple points worth addressing here. First off, in one week, it looks like he's grossed over $6 million.

I’m doing 67 shows on this tour and we’ve sold 135,600 tickets to those shows after one week on sale.

The math here is easy. Every ticket is $45. That's it. So, multiply and you get $6.1 million. Obviously, that's gross sales, not net, and there are significant overhead costs to factor in, but still -- that's not bad.

Perhaps more interesting is the impact on scalping. The Laughspin folks noted that there still does appear to be some availability of scalped tickets (some at high prices), and Louis and his team are working hard to track down and cancel many of those tickets. But he also provided some numbers that suggest the new plan is working quite well in minimizing scalping. He can tell this, in part, because prior to setting up this tour, he had two other shows booked in a more traditional way, and he can look at how many scalped tickets are available for those shows compared to the new ones. And the differences are striking:

There are 1100 tickets available on stubhub alone for those two traditionally ticketed shows out of 4,400 available ( Almost exactly 25%)....

There are less than 500 tickets available on all scalper sites (including stubhub) out of the entire 135,600 tickets that have already been sold, from the tour sold exclusively on my site, louisck.com (substantially less than 1%)

So it’s working. So far.

That's a pretty massive difference. Assuming this really does work, it sounds like Louis and Etix (who is handling the tickets) have a service that lots of other performers might want to start looking into.

One final interesting point: Louis talks a little about how the scalpers are reacting -- saying that they defend what they do...

Contact with these scalpers has been enlightening. They tend to respond with indignance and a defensive posture “Hey man! Scalping is NOT a crime!” We’re not treating it as a crime or even a wrong-doing. We are just competing with them, on behalf of my fans, to enforce the terms and conditions of our ticket sales and to keep the prices down. It’s worth the effort, it’s working and it’s even been kind of fun.

And that is part of what makes this so awesome. He doesn't feel the need to go legal or whine about it. He's innovating and adapting... and beating the scalpers at their own game. And that's how it should be done.

Filed Under: direct to fan, louis ck, open human and awesome, scalpers