If People Like You And Your Work They'll Pay; If They Like Your Work, But Don't Like You, They'll Infringe

from the cthulhu-saves-your-games dept

With the massive success of Double Fine's Kickstarter campaign (which has passed quadruple what it asked), a lot of people are commenting about just what it means to be successful in today's digital climate. Among those talking are indie game developers who are taking the time to reflect on this phenomena and how they might be able to duplicate it for themselves. One of these indie developers is Robert Boyd, the creative mind behind retro JRPGs Breath of Death VII and Cthulhu Saves The World. After a series of tweets on the topic of Double Fine's success, Robert closed with this profound statement:

If people like you and like your work, they'll buy your games. If they like your work but don't like you, they'll pirate them.

The first half of this statement is at the heart of the idea of connecting with your fans. Part of this ability to connect with your fans is to be more open and human with them. We have seen repeatedly how artists sell more of their work and scarcities associated with their work as they become more human to their fan base. As fans come to trust you and feel that they can approach you directly, even if that is through email, Twitter or Facebook, they will be far more likely to trust you enough to part with their money. This trust is one of the keys to Double Fine's success and a key to the success of any game developer. Similarly, it was seen in the way Louis CK treated his fans.

The second half of this statement is a lesson that many larger publishers, developers and others in the entertainment industry have forgotten. Because of that, they are suffering the fallout. DRM and other methods that show how little the developer or publisher trusts its fans breeds contempt within the fan community. While those consumers may still like the product, they don't like the way they are treated. This is one of the driving factors behind piracy. To top off the problem, these creators and gatekeepers set up walls between themselves and their fans. They do everything to avoid contact with fans outside carefully orchestrated scenarios. This turns fans off and decreases the amount of trust they have for these individuals and companies.

It's often said that people will just get stuff for free if they can. But, clearly, that's not true. We've seen so many cases of content creators being supported by their fans at tremendous levels (such as the two cases mentioned above) that there's clearly more to it. And it seems that a key element is whether or not fans actually like you. Some people suggest that the disconnect with piracy is that people value the work, but won't pay for it. But a more accurate realization may be that people value the work... but don't value the creator if the creator doesn't value them. When the two sides value each other, it seems people are more than willing to pay.

Filed Under: awesome, human, infringement, likability, open, robert boyd

Nothing Scales Like Stupidity

from the but...-but...-outliers! dept

An argument we frequently hear in the comments is how whatever's working for sucessful artist A won't work for artists B-Z. Whether it's Jonathan Coulton giving away his music while still making $500,000/year, Joe Konrath bypassing major publishers on his way to megabucks in self-publishing or a game developer using the Pirate Bay as a distribution system, we hear the same thing: this is all well and good for whoever's being discussed, but it's no good for anyone else. John D. Cook at The Endeavour boils down the argument thusly:

Yes, that would be the smart thing to do, but it won't scale. The stupid approach is better because it scales.

And that's it, in essence. Despite the fact that creative artists have to compete with free in this day and age, many people, even some in the creative community, still believe that this is optional. So, they lash out against any artist who has chosen to attack the perceived "piracy problem" by performing such aberrational acts as "connecting with their fans" and giving them a "reason to buy." Strange how that works.

But the arguments are always there. "This only works for X." "This artist is too small/unknown/niche/etc." If they're not running through the normal gatekeepers, it's made to seem as though every success story is yet another single example whipped up in a vacuum. Maybe the problem isn't the business plan that works, it's the outdated thinking that says that if it doesn't scale, it's not worth examining. Cook responds:

If the smart thing to do doesn’t scale, maybe we shouldn’t scale.

One size will never fit all. Get over it. Look at what works and adjust per individual situation rather than looking for the simple "Plan A" that's supposedly a be-all and end-all for every creative artist. That doesn't exist any more.

Filed Under: business models, economics, scaling

The World Of Open Textbooks Just Became A Little More Crowded -- And A Little More Open

from the sharing-the-knowledge dept

Open e-textbooks are hardly new: Techdirt has been reporting on the pioneer in this market, Flat World Knowledge, for several years now. But a new entrant called OpenStax College is noteworthy for a number of reasons:

OpenStax College is a nonprofit organization committed to improving student access to quality learning materials. Our free textbooks are developed and peer-reviewed by educators to ensure they are readable, accurate, and meet the scope and sequence requirements of your course. Through our partnerships with companies and foundations committed to reducing costs for students, OpenStax College is working to improve access to higher education for all. OpenStax College is an initiative of Rice University and is made possible through the generous support of several philanthropic foundations.

Those foundations include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, probably the leading philanthropic organization in the field of open education, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. But the Rice connection is just as important as the funding.

Although MIT is known as a pioneer of sharing its courses freely online through its OpenCourseWare project, arguably Rice University went even further with its highly-modular Connexions program, which offers what it calls "frictionless remixing". The use of small learning modules, together with a permissive cc-by license for everything, allows educators and publishers to create their own courses by drawing on Connexions' material.

Given that the founder of Connexions, Richard Baraniuk, is also the Director of OpenStax College, it's hardly a surprise that the same cc-by licensing applies to the latter's textbooks. Still, that's a step beyond Flat World Knowledge, which allows textbooks to be modified, but under the more restrictive cc by-nc-sa license. Even though OpenStax College is a non-profit, and Flat World Knowledge a company, both adopt the same business model: the e-textbooks are given away, while printed copies and supplementary materials require payment -- a classic example of using abundance to make money from associated scarcities.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: competition, free, open, text books

How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment

from the make-it-happen dept

I've been pretty busy traveling and appearing at various conferences over the last month, including Midem, where I released our latest research report, The Sky is Rising!. I did so with a quick ten-minute presentation about both the state of the industry... as well as the fact that the challenges for anyone in the entertainment industry can be met by being more open, more human and (most of all) more awesome: It's basically a follow-up presentation to my 2009 presentation, which introduced the Connect with Fans + Reason to Buy formula. Either way, it was fun to be back on the Midem stage, and I was thrilled with the overall response to the presentation. I heard from a lot of folks at the show about how much they liked it and how it gave them a good framework for building out their efforts as artists or as labels. It's always fun to be at Midem and talk to people on the ground about what they're seeing in the industry as well. Two years ago, I had thought that perhaps the industry had reached the bargaining stage, but I may have been wrong (or the five stages of grief aren't really applicable here). There wasn't nearly as much talk about "evil piracy" at this year's Midem... but there was plenty of lashing out about "evil Google" and how it was to blame for everything. If anything, it seemed to be a slip back into the "anger" stage. As we've explained time and time again, this anger seems entirely misdirected.

So it was nice to see so many people at Midem respond positively to my "totally positive" message about where some key opportunities were, by having them focus on how being more awesome to fans and treating them as human really has amazing results.

Separately, while I was at Midem I also did a much more technical "Midem Academy" session that was designed to be a hands-on interactive discussion about specific strategies for alternative business models that don't rely on copyright. That session was 50 minutes long and didn't have the same "entertainment" value, as I was told I had to use their limited Powerpoint format, rather than do my typical style (as seen above). Still, I quite enjoyed that discussion, and ended up spending almost as much time as we spent in the session talking to people and answering questions after the session. For some reason a lot of people were shy to ask questions to the whole group, but wanted to chat afterwards. There was also a cool "open table" session I did at "Direct2Fan Camp" at Midem, where I got to talk with a bunch of folks who were interested in new business models. That was a lot of fun.

Finally, a couple weeks before that, I was in Washington DC for the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net event, where there was a panel discussion/debate over SOPA, which was recently put online as well. That panel has myself and Steve Crocker (head of ICANN) talking about problems with SOPA/PIPA... and the MPAA's Paul Brigner and the US Chamber of Commerce's Steve Tepp defending SOPA. The panel may seem out-of-date, but it actually took place the day before the mass internet blackouts that effectively killed the bills. So, when this discussion happened, the bills (even in reduced form, without DNS issues) were still very much alive. At this point, the debate might be more interesting in a historical context, rather than a present one: Either way the discussion was also fun (and, at times, a little heated). I also found it kind of amusing that we were told that there were to be no "opening speeches," and then everyone gave an opening speech. I don't know if it's a DC thing or what, but I had to create an "opening speech" on the fly, though I tried to keep it short.

Either way, it was great to meet many Techdirt community members around the globe at these various events as well, and I hope to see more of you at future events.

Filed Under: awesome, human, louis ck, midem, open, sky is rising, techdirt feature

People Rushing To Give Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Just Hours For Brand New Adventure Game

from the monkey-island! dept

Whoa. After dinner, I did a quick look around the web to see if anything interesting was going on, and saw someone mention that the Double Fine Adventure project on Kickstarter had raised over $100,000 in just a few hours. I clicked to open the page, but then went off to do some other things, take my dog for a walk, tuck my son into sleep, chat with my wife, etc. Then I came back to my computer, and someone else mentioned that it had now raised over $200,000. And as I write this, it's getting mighty close to $300,000. Who knows where it'll be by the time you read this. Either way, the basic story is that popular game development shop Double Fine wants to create a new point-and-click adventure game, but says that no publisher will pay for such a thing (even though they have Ron Gilbert -- the creator of the original Monkey Island games on staff).

So they decided to go to Kickstarter. And, as a part of that project, they're also planning to create a documentary film about the making of the game... using the same filmmaking team, 2 Player Productions, who have also been working on a documentary about video game maker Notch (who you hopefully know already). But they wanted to raise $400,000. $300,000 for the game, and $100,000 for the documentary. That's still a significant chunk to raise over Kickstarter... but clearly the public thinks it's worth it. You should check out the awesome video that Tim Schafer, Double Fine's boss, put together, embedded here: The video is quite awesome.

Separately, Double Fine wanted to offer some super premium tiers which were simply too rich for Kickstarter to handle, so they had to post them to their own website. These include the following:

Pledge $15,000 or more:
Dinner with Tim Schafer and key members of the dev team.

Pledge $20,000 or more:
Dinner and BOWLING with Tim Schafer and key members of the dev team.

Pledge $30,000 or more:
Picture of Ron Gilbert smiling.

Pledge $35,000 or more:
Undoctored picture of Ron Gilbert smiling.

Pledge $50,000 or more:
Become an actual character in the game.

Pledge $150,000 or more:
Tim Schafer (that’s me) will give last four remaining Triangle Boxed Day of the Tentacles, in original shrink-wrap.” (Limit of 1) (Holy crap, what am I thinking? I only have four of those!)

There are plenty of interesting things to discuss about all of this, but one of the key points is that this shows how content creators sometimes can read a market much better than the traditional gatekeepers. Double Fine knows that no publisher would give them money for this game because the "experts" at those publishers (gatekeepers) don't think there's a real market for them. But there clearly is, and it's all coming out thanks to the Kickstarter campaign, and this massive rush to fund the game.

I also find this amusing, coming just hours after someone was telling me on Twitter that Kickstarter was no way to fund serious development, because people just aren't willing to pay for creating new things. It appears that plenty of people disagree. Anyway, we've embedded the pledge widget below, because at the rate people are pledging, I'm sure the numbers we talk about above are likely to be out of date pretty quickly, and it seems likely that this game will far surpass its $400k goal. I'm just wondering if Ron Gilbert will ever actually smile.

Filed Under: adventure games, business models, funding, gatekeepers, video games
Companies: double fine, kickstarter

Publishing 2.0: Content Is Marketing, Profits Come From The Packaging

from the moving-with-the-times dept

Publishers find themselves confronted by a difficult dilemma at the moment. On the one hand, they might want e-books to succeed, because digital devices represent a huge new market to which they can sell their back catalogs. On the other, they might want them to fail, because e-books will cannibalize sales of traditional books, and it's not yet clear how low the price of e-books will have to go in order to avoid the kind of piracy problems the recording industry exacerbated through persistent overcharging.

But maybe publishers can have it both ways – selling high-volume, low-price e-books, and small-run, high-price physical books. As a recent feature in the Guardian devoted to the rebirth of "beautiful books" put it:

What the rise of electronic publishing has done, rather, is create a context in which the book's two distinct incarnations – as beautiful object and as a set of vaporous pixels - are linked not by "or" but "and".

This is certainly what they believe at the Folio Society. You might think that a company that has dedicated itself since 1947 to publishing exquisite editions of classic texts – everything from Beowulf to Elizabeth David's Italian Food – would be feeling glum about its chances in this new landscape. But David Hayden, the publishing director and a bookselling veteran, is feeling perky. An unabashed fan of new technology, he reckons the result of the seismic shifts in publishing will mean "fewer and better-produced books". In particular he believes in the model of the "retroactive purchase", which goes something like this. You buy an e-reader and, at a stroke, have access to thousands of out-of-print classics via Project Gutenberg. One evening, at a loose end, you download The Mill on the Floss, having always wondered vaguely what it was about. You find yourself transfixed. You love this book, you really do, and want to suggest it to your book group. So you buy the Penguin Classic edition, because it's easy to scribble on and pass around. And then, when your Mum's birthday comes around – she loves George Eliot and has been on at you for ages to take the plunge – you give her a handsome presentation copy of the book, bound in buckram and silk, the sort of thing that the Folio Society does surpassingly well.

The rise of beautiful books described in the article is a classic example of using abundance to make money from scarcity. Freely-available e-books encourage people to read a text they might not have encountered otherwise. When they discover they enjoy it, they decide to buy it in a form that enhances the pleasure of reading – a high-quality physical book.

This phenomenon is why publishers should not see low e-book prices – which are likely to come, whether they want it or not, not least because of Amazon's growing power – as the end of the world. In the digital age, where raw information can and will be copied freely, it no longer makes sense to pursue a business model based largely on selling what's inside the book. Instead, publishers should think about the unique elements of the content's packaging, which can't be shared in this way. That's exactly what companies built around open source have done, and Red Hat is now a billion-dollar business.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: books, business models, ebooks, publishing

Once Again, If You're Trying To Save The $200 Million Movie, Perhaps You're Asking The Wrong Questions

from the why-$200-million dept

Many years back, when discussing new business models that don't need to rely on copyright at a Cato event, an NBC Universal executive demanded to know how he could keep making $200 million movies. As we said at the time, that's asking the wrong question. It's makes no sense at all to start from a cost, and then derive back how to make that profitable. I could just as easily ask how can we possibly make $1 trillion movies in the future? The only thing that should concern Hollywood is how it can make profitable movies in the future. That could mean figuring out ways to make a profit on a movie that costs $200 million (and, certainly big blockbuster movies like Avatar sure seem to still be able to make plenty of money, despite being widely downloaded via unauthorized means). However, it might also mean making really good movies for a lot less money. Of course, we've suggested that in the past, and got mocked by Hollywood folks who seem to insist that any good movie has to cost a lot of money. That seems pretty presumptuous.

I'm a bit behind on this (the SOPA/PIPA stuff took up a lot of time), but filmmaker/actor/director/writer Ed Burns, who came to fame a couple decades ago with the massively successful indie film The Brothers McMullen, likely had every opportunity to follow the path of plenty of successful indie moviemakers: go mainstream. He could have hooked up with a big studio and been filming the latest of those $200 million bubble-gum flicks. And while Burns has appeared in a few big studio films (Saving Private Ryan), over the last few years, he's really focused on staying close to his indie roots. In fact, he's stayed so close to them, that you could argue his latest efforts are even more indie than his first film.

He filmed his latest movie, Newlyweds for a grand total of $9,000 ($2K for insurance, $2k for actors, $5k for food, transportation, and other costs) and was done in just 12 days -- but spread out over 5 months. He used a three-man crew, natural lighting, found locations that didn't require paying, and filmed with a Canon 5D camera. Of course, he's admitted that the editing and post-production work really brought the overall budget up to about $120,000 -- but that's still an incredibly inexpensive movie. He's also focused on using Twitter to market the film. In that interview, he notes that if you connect with your fans, they'll "work on your behalf" to help you do stuff. He's distributing it using VOD, and it seems very likely that it will make a nice profit (if it hasn't already), just given the low budget, and all the buzz the film has been getting.

Of course, no one is saying that all movies should be made for $9,000 (though, I'm sure some of our regular critics will pretend that's what I'm saying). But there is an argument that lots of really great movies that would never have been made before, now have the ability to get made, distributed, watched (and be profitable!) in a way that simply wasn't possible just a few years ago. Frankly, I'd rather focus on ways to help more filmmakers be able to make movies like this, than worry about how some exec at NBC Universal defends his decision to waste $200 million on the next "reboot" of some franchise no one cares about.

Filed Under: $200 million movie, cost, ed burns, movies, production

Kickstarter Helped Raise Nearly $100 Million In 2011... But There Are No New Business Models?

from the just-saying... dept

For years, we've been hearing how the new business models we talk about aren't really "big enough" or that they're just "exceptions" to the rule. Yet, every year we see more and more success stories involving those kinds of business models. Kickstarter, for example, has been quite successful building a platform that empowers exactly the kinds of business models we've described for nearly a decade -- and it has found tremendous success doing so. It just posted some stats for 2011, showing that just under $100 million was pledged into projects this year (with approximately $84 million going into projects that were actually funded).

Perhaps most interesting of all? The two areas of the entertainment industry where we repeatedly hear the loudest cries of "there are no new business models!" -- movies and music -- were the two largest areas on Kickstarter. An impressive $32,473,790.40 was pledged for films and video -- leading to 3,284 successful projects, involving 308,541 backers. For music, it was $19,801,685.21 pledged for 3,653 successful projects, involving 260,178 backers. The 2011 numbers roughly tripled the 2010 numbers, so this kind of thing is clearly growing quickly. And, remember, Kickstarter is just one company in this space, which has multiple other companies -- such as IndieGogo and PledgeMusic -- offering similar platforms.

And yet, we're told that there's no way to make money and that fans just want stuff for free? Perhaps it's time to rethink some of those assumptions...

But the really key thing here is exactly what we've said all along: new business models develop. They always do. And part of allowing those new business models to develop is letting new startups, services, platforms and tools develop to meet the needs of the market. Kickstarter clearly meets a need. Things like SOPA and PIPA make it more difficult to start such a company or build such a platform these days (which is why both Kickstarter and IndieGogo have come out strongly against these bills). Let these new services live, and watch new business models succeed (and with them, all sorts of artists and creators).

Filed Under: crowdfunding, economics, independent artists, new business models, opportunity
Companies: indiegogo, kickstarter