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.
The details of what she's offering are, as you might expect, quite interesting as well. All too often, it feels like people seem to think that all you have to do is "put it on Kickstarter." And, sometimes that can work, but it helps to have cool options. Amanda's offering has a lot of cool goodies and opportunities (including live events) for backers, allowing them to self-select in to how they'd like to support her. A lot of the offering is vinyl focused, which isn't that surprising, given the renewed popularity of vinyl these days, but also the ability to do more artistic work in combination with a vinyl release. Of course, not everyone has a record player... but they've got that covered. At some of the higher level packages, they'll include a USB-enabled Crosley turntable which they'll custom-paint for you, making it awesome.
Also, with this project, Amanda announced a new project called Loanspark, which is kind of like a Kickstarter, but as a loan, where the money gets paid back (assuming it's made up) and the "interest" isn't monetary, but creative. This is definitely for larger amounts, but you can see the listing of options, which include things like getting a home concert (or for a charity) or a work of art created by Amanda. Who knows if anyone will take her up on it, but it's another interesting idea worth watching.
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.
Last week we wrote about Dan Bull's experiment to release a song, "Sharing is Caring" for free via The Pirate Bay (and other sites) and to see if he could still get it to show up in various charts. As we discussed, it definitely was making its way onto the lists of Amazon UK's top hip hop sales. And, on Sunday, the official UK charts came out -- with Sharing is Caring coming in at number 9 on the Indie singles chart and number 35 on the RnB singles chart.
In both cases, "Sharing is Caring" was the top new entrant on both of those charts. While some will say that not making the pop charts suggests this was a failure, it sure looks like a ton of folks were happy to support Dan's effort. As for the US charts, those have a weighted system that includes radio airplay, meaning that there's simply no way Dan could get listed, because he's not going to play the payola game to get on the air. Either way, it was a great experiment, and a job well done by Dan.
If I had to choose one company as the antithesis to Ubisoft's boneheaded take on business, I would probably choose Stardock. Stardock is one of those companies that continues to do everything right while many other companies in the video game industry insist it is wrong. So, it really comes as no surprise that Stardock producer Jon Shafer wrote that respecting your fans should be one of the most important aspects of doing business. He makes four very good points in this essay that I think all entertainment companies can learn from.
First up, Jon speaks about the importance of demos to a project's success:
When you don't put out a demo, some people will start asking questions… is it because the game isn't any good and the developer is afraid people will find out? Did they run out of time and the lack of a demo is a sign that the game is sloppy and unfinished? You don't want players asking those questions -- you want them trying out your awesome game and telling everyone they know about it.
We have spoken numerous times about the importance of fans being able to sample entertainment before they buy. We have seen study after study that shows that those who have the ability to try things out before dropping money for it, are much more likely to not only buy, but buy more. Why would you deny your fans the ability to try out your game, music, book or movie? A nice demo can go a long way.
Next up, Jon shares some words about interacting with fans:
As developers working on the oft-mundane, daily tasks required in making a piece of software, we often lose sight of the fact that there are also many players who love our work. For them the opportunity to talk with someone that worked on their favorite game is incredibly exciting (something we are occasionally reminded of when we get to meet the creators of our favorite games!).
Ah. The old adage of connecting with fans. What this does is make sure that not only that the fans like your work, but that they also like you. We know that it is far easier for customers to buy something from a company or a person they actually like. The best way to gain that affection is to put yourself out there and communicate with your fans.
Then, Jon speaks about giving fans ownership:
Players like having ownership. It's one of the reasons why they're playing games (an active form of entertainment) rather than experiencing a self-contained work in another medium. The absolute best way to hand over the keys to your game is to make it moddable. Many of the most beloved and long-lasting games of all time are also highly moddable, and their communities live on long after the last official update. Why? Because the players took ownership and had a vested interest in the longevity and overall success of the game. This sort of relationship between player and game is only possible when the players have the power to reshape the game to their liking.
While modding itself is unique to gaming, the idea behind it is as old as recorded media. The idea behind modding is pretty close to that of remixing in other media. This desire to reshape and make our own the entertainment we consume is something that should be embraced by successful creators. Doing so not only gains you more fans, but also ensures that your work will live on in the hearts and minds of those who enjoy it.
Finally, Jon speaks on piracy:
Ah, the elephant in the room. I’ll just put it this way: if the CIA can get hacked, you’re not going to be able to prevent your game from being cracked. Sorry. You can't stop piracy. Focus on building up a fanbase and higher sales through goodwill instead of trying to bend the internet to your will. If you're spending a ton of effort trying to "win the war" on piracy, then you're wasting resources you could have been used to make better games. The reason why studios like Blizzard and Valve are so successful and beloved is because they focus on delivering the best games possible, time and money be damned. Don't make enemies of paying customers by making them jump through hoops. As history shows us, in most wars there are no winners -- only losers.
We are already well aware of Stardock's official position on piracy. It would rather maximize sales than waste resources fighting a losing battle. This is something that many people within the entertainment industry need to learn. Piracy is a symptom of far larger problems. By wasting time and money fighting it, you are shifting resources away from those areas that truly matter to the end consumer.
While these four points are nothing new to many of us here, they are things that too many still have not learned or refuse to recognize. It is time to stop the war on fans and begin to embrace them and their culture. Times are changing. People do not consume entertainment in the same ways they did ten years ago. Fans know what they like and know who provides it. Those who refuse to adapt are going to be left behind.
We recently posted what I thought was an interesting essay by musician Erin McKeown on her reaction to seeing someone copy a song of hers, and have that other song become a "hit." We thought it was an interesting and nuanced exploration of some of the challenges of being a musician and thinking about copyright -- from both an emotional and logical perspective -- and thought it would make for an interesting discussion. And, in fact, it did make for an interesting discussion. With well over 100 comments, representing a variety of different viewpoints, there was a pretty deep dive into the myriad responses the piece brought out. Like pretty much any online discussion, some of the comments were more polite than others. But, when viewed on the whole, it struck me that the conversation was much more polite than most online discussions around copyright. In fact, what was interesting was that because the discussion was quite nuanced, most of our usual haters didn't take part. So we didn't have, for example, anyone calling me a slimy lying sociopath or a disgusting human being.
Some of the comments were pointed in their disagreement with Erin, but almost immediately others came in to defend her, and the overall discussion was quite interesting in my mind. And, yet, a bevy of the standard Techdirt critics took to Twitter to claim that Erin's article was proof positive that Techdirt was pure evil, hated artists and was the disgusting underbelly of the internet (a very close paraphrase of actual statements). I'm not going to link to any of these, because I don't mean to call out those people specifically. Similarly, there was a thread on a music site that was entitled "why does Techdirt hate musicians?" I suddenly had people tweeting at me, personally, about how I was somehow destroying music and why did I not want artists to get paid.
I honestly can't figure out why this was the response. First of all, we've regularly been attacked because (we're told) we never, ever post an article where we show sympathy for artists' difficult plight these days. So here was an article, from a musician, explaining her plight -- and we get attacked for that?!? Furthermore, I'm long since past the time when I could read all the comments on the site, but I do read a pretty large number of them, and the amount of hate and vitriol that has come from Techdirt haters (see above, for two very recent examples) is way, way, way, way beyond anything seen in that particular thread.
In fact, the further you read into the comments the more you realize it's a detailed and nuanced discussion on many important issues. People don't agree, but no one's calling each other a slimy lying sociopath or a disgusting human being. Yet, because a few commenters (not even the majority, as far as I can tell) disagree with Erin, all of Techdirt hates musicians? There were a few tweets and statements elsewhere saying that Techdirt hates it when artists make money. Of course, that's ridiculous. We regularly celebrate artists earning money -- sometimes lots of money. What we get nervous amount is when artists start making use of laws in ways that may actually do them more harm than good in the long term, by attacking their fans as if they were criminals, or when they seek to abuse laws that take away fundamental rights of others.
But, really, what was most amazing to me was how quick some of these people were to jump on the entire Techdirt community, because a few comments disagreed with one musician's opinion. They ignored everyone who came to her defense. They ignored the fact that we posted the story in the first place. They ignored all the people on other stories who attack Techdirt supporters in often extremely personal ways (I've been threatened with physical harm as well as seen multiple comments I won't repeat about my family). But most people -- myself included -- see those kinds of comments as part of the price you pay for having an open discussion. Some people are going to disagree and some will use different levels of speech, some more polite than others. To tar and feather everyone on the site because someone on it disagrees with your personal views is to suggest that every community online is a problem.
Is it that difficult to distinguish a nuanced conversations where not everyone agrees with each other... from the "dark underbelly" of the internet?
There's been a really interesting trend going on recently. For all the talk about how the entertainment industry must be dying (it isn't), a whole bunch of internet-aware celebrities are wholeheartedly embracing the internet as a new video platform -- and this includes a bunch of folks we've written about before. The first to make a big splash was Felicia Day, who already has been hugely successful in building a massively popular online-only video program, while also being thoughtful about new business models. On April 2nd, she and some friends -- including folks like Wil Wheaton, Veronica Belmont and Paul & Storm, -- launched the awesomely named Geek & Sundry, which includes both her existing show, The Guild, and a variety of others (including Wheaton's Tabletop, which looks awesome).
That same day, Chris Hardwick, of the Nerdist (or, I guess we should now call it "Nerdist Industries") launched his special YouTube channel with a variety of shows of its own:
While some of the programming is based on already-existing Nerdist properties, most of it has been specifically conceived for the Nerdist YouTube channel. For instance, "Face to Face with 'Weird Al' Yankovic" brings in the beloved song parodist (and frequent Nerdist guest and contributor) to interview celebrities, and "Ain't it Cool News with Harry Knowles" will adapt the infamous film gossip site to a filmed talk show. Hardwick will also host "Chris Hardwick’s All Star Bowling," a bowling competition/comedy show with a nod to Hardwick's father, champion bowler Billy Hardwick. Nerdist will also stream episodes of the legendary sketch show "Kids in the Hall," with new interviews and segments hosted by Hardwick.
The Nerdist YouTube channel will also incorporate adaptations of Nerdist podcasts, and plenty of wild cards, most notably: "Neil Patrick Harris’ Puppetopia," "Gif Gif City," "Cute Things Exploding," "Weird Shit From Japan," "Untitled Rob Zombie Project" and "Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson," a video version of the podcast hosted by the famed astrophysicist.
While I note that there's a lot of overlap between these two worlds (Wheaton and Hardwick are good friends and used to be roommates, and I'm pretty sure Hardwick is friends with Paul & Storm too), it seems pretty cool that they're both starting to flood YouTube with cool content.
Amusingly, when I first started writing up this post, I was going to mention all of the cool things that Kevin Smith has done with his Smodcast network, but I was realizing that was just audio. Well, no matter. Just as I was reading up on the details of the other two networks, I saw the news that Smith was launching Smodcast Internet TV -- his own online video network too! Perfect timing, Kev.
Like both of the other networks, the plan here is to take some existing shows (in this case, from the Smodcast network), and then add some new ones as well.
Who knows if all of these (or any of these) will survive, or even thrive. But, the awesome thing is that they can do these things and just see what happens. They don't need to go through gatekeepers. There are no gatekeepers anymore. They can blaze their own path and find out for themselves what works and what doesn't work -- and we're talking about a bunch of folks who all have pretty long histories of really embracing what the internet allows, so I'm excited to see where these experiments go, and I'd imagine we're going to see plenty more like this. Some will succeed, some will fail. But you have to be blind to think that creativity or the industry is struggling. People who can't help but create cool and amazing things suddenly have many more tools at their disposal for creating, distributing, promoting (and, yes, monetizing) content than ever before, and tons of new opportunities are opening up.
Anyone who thinks that the entertainment industry is in trouble isn't paying attention. The rest of us are over here checking out all sorts of cool new content, which didn't require a big studio exec deciding whether or not it deserved to be on TV.
The BBC has a great short video feature looking at Odd Future, the massively popular (and equally controversial) rap collective, and their merchandise-focused approach to the music business. Odd Future has always been an interesting case study in music: their graphic content prevents them from getting much radio play, their career was started and built online, and they give away all their music (20 albums worth, at this point) for free. But they have been making money since the beginning by selling homemade merchandise directly to fans, offering lots of limited edition shirts and one-off products. Now they've combined that approach with their highly successful tours, by launching pop-up merch shops in every city before the show. They do meet-and-greets at the shop where they take photos and sign autographs. The fans love it—they were in Toronto recently, and the line for the pop-up shop stretched several blocks, and according to the BBC they are moving unique hand-made t-shirts at £100 each.
Tour merchandise has always been popular, but Odd Future takes it to the next level (though they're not the only artists to experiment with this kind of thing). Rather than just selling cheap t-shirts at a massive markup from a table in the venue, they turn it into a whole companion experience to the show, and offer merch that's actually one-of-a-kind. The Odd Future kids are naturals at connecting with fans, and this shows how they also combine that with a bundle of different reasons to buy. Well-known for shirking the establishment in every way imaginable, Odd Future doesn't seem to care too much about record sales, and they definitely don't care about piracy or competing with free—they've found a new way of doing things, and it's working.
Note: let's not turn this into a debate about the morality/merits of Odd Future's music. For that, head over to Tim Cushing's excellent post on Lost In The Sound.
Erin McKeown, a wonderful musician who has been very involved in some discussions on copyright and internet access -- and who was especially helpful in the fight against SOPA -- recently wrote the following thoughtful, heartfelt piece concerning the emotional roller coaster of having someone copy your work, and how all of this relates to copyright law.
I always knew my song "Slung-lo" was a hit.
It just took longer than I expected.
"Slung-lo" came out on my 2003 album, grand (Nettwerk). It found its way to the Brittany Murphy masterpiece "Uptown Girls" and into episodes of "Roswell", "Gilmore Girls", and "Privileged". It also found its way into a Tesco F&F commercial, which ran in the Czech Republic in the summer of 2008. Though not a hit by any means, it was a remarkably long life for a song that came out in 2003.
And then last year, I received two separate emails through my website pointing me to this video for a song called "Touch The Sun" sung by the Czech artist, Debbi. (editor's note: we tried to embed the official video for this song, but Sony Music refuses to allow an embed on the song).
"Have you seen this?" both emails asked. I hadn't.
From the first moment I heard "Touch The Sun," it was as clear to me as anything that someone had taken the DNA of my song "Slung-lo" and turned it into another song. At this point, my lawyer wants me to make very clear that IN MY OPINION, THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
I don't want to spend a lot of time technically breaking down the two songs, but I'd like to point out a few things. Among the many substantial similarities between them, check out the lyrical content (weather as metaphor for happiness), the almost exact song structure (solo verse, band verse, double-tracked vocal in the chorus...), and the vocal cadence in unison with the descending instrumental line in the chorus. I could go on.
Debbi's "Touch The Sun" isn't the proverbial "kid in the bedroom with a laptop" who remixes pop culture and makes mash-ups to show how alike we humans really are. No, it turns out the song was written for a commercial scale beer campaign by the giant European alcohol company Metaxa, which itself is a subsidiary of the global beverage conglomerate Remy Cointreau.
And it is a hit. A huge one. Debbi was the runner up on the Czech version of the "Idol" franchise. The song won "Song of the Year" at the Czech version of the Grammys. The original video that was sent to me has almost a million hits. A quick search of YouTube reveals karaoke versions, animations, "how to play versions," and plenty of people in their bedrooms playing the song and singing along. The beer ad with the song aired across the Czech Republic more than 1200 times in September of 2010. That's about 40 times a day.
So, after all this time, "Slung-lo" is finally a hit.
The easy part of this story is that I work with an amazing publishing administrator, Duchamp, who has stepped in to help me. We've retained Czech council who have been in contact with Metaxa, Debbi's record label (Sony!), and the Slovak production house that produced the track. All have denied any infringement, declined to settle, and at this point, court proceedings have started. My lawyers estimate that this could take anywhere from one to five years.
This spring Remy re-launched the ad campaign across all of Europe.
By the way, the writers are Tomas Zubak, Peter Graus, and Maros Kachut. Let's #kony2012 them.
Actually let's not.
Instead, I want to talk about the whole host of emotions this experience has brought up for me, and the way it's forced me to confront and articulate my beliefs about copyright.
After watching the video for the first time, I was certifiably apoplectic. I was physically shaking with anger. How dare they! I wasn't so much angry at Debbi -- who, from what I eventually read, really just sang the damn thing -- as I was at the writers. They had to know what they were doing, I fumed. I mean, the song was just in a commercial there. They had to know about it. How dare they!
And then I felt small. I'm nobody, I thought, so they probably figured they could get away with it. It's not like they ripped off Beyonce. Just small-time me.
And then I felt defeated. I've always wanted to have a hit like "Touch The Sun". And I thought I wrote one in 2003. It was such a great disappointment to me that no one noticed. There will never be enough people to notice me, I thought.
And then, I would find myself dreaming. Maybe I'll get a settlement. Maybe it will be large enough to make all my problems go away. I'll be able to pay for my new record. I'll be able to afford the best marketing and publicity money can buy. And then there will be some left over to buy a house. My life will change!
Finally, I disconnected. I couldn't tell very many people about what was happening, and the feelings were overwhelming me. Ok, I thought, I'll just let the lawyers do their lawyer thing. This is why you pay them. I am powerless. Breathe deep and exhale.
Very early in the process, my lawyers asked me what I wanted to be the goal of my settlement. Did I want 100% of the money made? Did I want a flat fee? How much? Did I want a public apology? Did I want to let it go? Did I just want credit?
These questions became a spiritual exercise. I began to think that how I answered them said something about who I was as a person.
I believe that creativity is an unpredictable, mysterious process. I often have no idea where a song comes from. Other times I am more aware of the hard work. It is not always an easy thing to know where influence ends and mimicry begins. But there is also a way we recognize ourselves in the faces of our children, and a gut instinct that tells me when I am hearing my own musical fingerprint.
I thought for awhile, and decided I would like 50% of all the monies made so far, and 50% on everything moving forward. I didn't need a public apology. I think this is fair, not punitive, and given the current copyright law system and options available to me, a reasonable request.
Now I just have to wait one to five years to see how it turns out.
Recently, I've ended up doing a lot of advocacy and policy work around copyright. This isn't because I am a copyright crusader, for or against, but because the issue gets tied up with so many other things I care about: media access, fair compensation for artists, creating a sustainable music business.
I actually hate to talk about copyright because, once it's brought up, it just seems to take over any conversation. Most of the time I feel like that conversation then becomes counterproductive. People throw around complex legal principles. The jargon resembles a foreign language. Often, the emotions get so heated that a room ends up divided at just the time when we need to work together. I've also noticed that most of the people crowing about copyright aren't individual copyright holders. They're groups of people who make money from the business of policing and administering copyright.
In my advocacy, I want to talk scale. I want to talk relationships and power structures. I want to talk about technology. Copyright is part of this, but it's not the whole enchilada. I've come to think that current copyright law is like an immovable boulder in the middle of a rushing river. It's not likely to change, so I'm going to have to work with it, as it is. And not let it stop other important work.
Yet here I am facing a difficult situation where copyright is the main issue.
I recently watched Kirby Ferguson's "Everything Is A Remix" series and found it really helpful to understand the feelings that came up for me around "Touch The Sun." In part four, Kirby makes the observation that we humans are easily and freely influenced and inspired by the world around us. However, when we feel like something has been taken from us, we get very angry and indignant. Our anger is as natural and essentially human as is our borrowing or being influenced.
Really how I feel about copyright is this: can you please just ask me? I am so easily found. One or two clicks, a badly mangled combination of "erin" and "mck" will get you to me. Let me know what you're doing. Let's talk. Take some time and connect with me. I know this is imperfect. Sometimes in the creative economy, there just isn't time. But how about we try?
I'd also like us all to acknowledge that the current copyright system, the unmovable boulder in the stream, rather than protecting rights holders and acting as a deterrent to infringement, is in its very complications a shelter for those who use others' material without permission and an obstacle to those who would like to legally use or remix content. Whether it is done consciously or unconsciously, nefariously or in communal bliss, given the complicated, arcane process, the myriad hoops to jump through, the length and cost of the process, who can afford to participate?
So Tomas, Peter, and Maros, I won't assume your motives in turning my song "Slung-lo" into "Touch The Sun." Instead, I'll say this: if you asked me, we might have worked something out. When I found you, we might have worked something out. Who knows, maybe we could have advanced the conversation around copyright and made a radical contribution toward a different type of economy. Instead, it will drag on in court. And I will fight it in court as long as I have to. But this could have gone another way. And for that, I am sad.
Erin McKeown is an internationally known musician, writer, and producer, releasing 8 full length albums in the last decade and spending an average of 200 nights a year onstage. She has appeared on Later with Jools Holland, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, NPR, BBC, and has had numerous film, television, and commercial placements. She's even written a song via text message with her friend Rachel Maddow. Lately, she has added mentor and activist to her resume. She is a board member at the Future of Music Coalition and a 2011-12 fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Visit her website www.erinmckeown.com for more info and to join her mailing list.
Special Thanks to Mike King, Andy Sellars, my lawyers, Lawrence Stanley and Vaclav Schovanek, and Erik Gilbert at Duchamp for their help researching and proofing this post.
When I wrote about the failings of JK Rowling's Pottermore ebook store, reaction was mixed. Most sources were praising Pottermore for striking out and demonstrating a new model for publishing, but I wanted to forget the business side for a moment and ask whether the customers were truly receiving any benefit. To add some contrast to this discussion, we can compare it to Discover a New Love, a new romance ebook club launched by independent publisher Sourcebooks (found Through PaidContent). It isn't a direct analog to Pottermore but demonstrates the reason to buy that Rowling's store mostly lacks. For ten bucks a monthper six months, members get one free romance ebook monthly, discounts on other ebooks, and a whole bunch of extras:
The initiative also aims to build community: Sourcebooks will hold parties for members at the major romance conferences, and is also offering
Member-only blog chats with our authors, editors, cover artists and more.
Special “Romance Insider” events for you to help events shape the future of romance publishing including focus groups, panel discussions, surveys and more.
A forum for discussing your favorite authors, books, heroes, heroines, and sex scenes with other members of the community
Member-only content from about our authors and upcoming titles.
Access to member-only special offers, contests, and give-aways
That's how you entice fans: by connecting with them, building a community, and offering that community things that they can't get anywhere else. Now, obviously there are some key differences between this and Pottermore. The Sourcebooks titles will still be directly available through other channels like the Kindle store, and the book-a-month model doesn't really work for a finished series like Harry Potter. But the parallels are striking too: both romance novels and Potteresque megafranchises represent bright spots in the publishing industry, and their escapist nature breeds ravenous fanbases. A Harry Potter book club that offered meaningful perks would certainly be a breakaway hit (of course, as expected because of the extreme popularity of the franchise, Pottermore is still doing pretty well). Apparently the broader Pottermore website (still in beta, promised for early this month) will provide some community-focused incentives, and hopefully that will turn the store into something more relevant to readers—but for now, Discover a New Love provides a good example of how to reward your customers with a true reason to buy.
For the most part, furniture designs can't be copyrighted. Just like fashion, which thrives without copyright, the furniture industry serves as an excellent example of why intellectual property is not necessary to promote innovation and commercial success. Copying happens in these industries, and while it's sometimes fought on trademark grounds, the prevalence of cheap knockoff products is an unavoidable reality. But cheap knockoffs are exactly that, and they meet the demands of a different market segment, where low price is more important than quality, so the original designers can compete either by focusing on their strength in the high-end market, by entering the lower market with their own cheaper products, or both.
Reader Baruch Moskovits points us to an example of the former in a video from furniture designer Republic of Fritz Hansen, makers of the popular Series 7 chair, which has an iconic (and frequently copied) design. The company is legally powerless to prevent copying, so they took a more pragmatic approach: smashing the knockoffs to pieces on YouTube—not for the catharsis, but to demonstrate how much better their original Series 7 chair holds up.
If you didn't watch the video, suffice to say the two knockoffs snap like twigs, while the original withstands the same punishment without any signs of damage. Fritz Hansen has rightly recognized what it offers that others don't, and has found a high-impact way of demonstrating this advantage. Naturally some people won't care: they will choose affordability over durability. But those people were probably never going to buy a $500 chair anyway, whether or not cheap alternatives for that specific design are available. Meanwhile, customers who value and can afford top-quality merchandise see a clear demonstration of what they're getting for their money, and one that reflects well not just on the Series 7 but on Fritz Hansen's entire line.
It's extremely rare, in any industry, for one creator to copy another without adding or changing something—a lower price point, better marketing, a better distribution model, a valuable curation service. This is how copying expands markets: originators and copiers must both focus the things that make them stand out, which means finding ways to make a product appeal to new and different people. Strong intellectual property protections exist to shut down such copying, but as industries like furniture and fashion demonstrate, this is unnecessary and potentially quite detrimental. Beating your competitors in court only proves that you were first—obliterating their products on YouTube proves that you're better.
We have often questioned the intentions of those who try to fight and stop piracy at all costs. We have even raised the question in the past, "Which is more important, stopping piracy or increasing sales?" We are not alone in asking this question either. Some within the entertainment industry are asking it as well.
When Stardock was running Impulse, we got to hear a lot from companies regarding to their feelings towards software piracy. In many cases, it was clear that the motivation to stop piracy was less about maximizing sales and more about preventing people who didn't pay for the game from playing it. I felt this was misguided.
When I see our games pirated, it definitely annoys me. I put a lot of myself into our software and seeing someone "stealing" it is upsetting. But at the same time, the response to piracy should be, to paraphrase The Godfather, "Just business". Simply put, the goal should be to maximize sales, not worry about people who wouldn't buy your game in the first place. I've said this in the past but until we were digitally distributing third party games, I didn't realize how prevalent the "stop those pirates" philosophy was.
Brad certainly understands what the answer to that question is. He continues by explaining that there are two types of pirates, those that just want free stuff no matter what and underserved customers. Just as we have explained numerous times, it is pointless and counter productive to go after the former type of pirate. It is far more rewarding to actually serve those customers that are more than willing to give you money.
Just as we have seen Valve grow in markets around the world by serving those underserved customers, other game developers, as well as other content creators, can make more money and grow in their respective industries by doing the same. So stop wasting time and money fighting a losing battle. Take that time, effort and money and put it where it really matters, providing the best possible service for your customers as possible.
