Selling directly to your fans is an OPTION, Bruno, as is signing with a label. Hell, it's an OPTION to hand out thumb-drives on the street with tunes on them, or drop burned CD's from a helicopter over a school zone... WHATEVER!
It should be an option, but it shouldn't be forced upon artists or rights holders. End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong (and then supporting none of them).
I notice Mike didn't run the ARStechnica story that showed that 99% of the material on a given torrent site was illegal. But that would be just the wrong message.
If the women had an open (or compromised) wireless phone on her phone line and someone ran up thousands of dollars of long distances, you know who would be on the hook, right?
The first time, the phone company might eat it.
The second time, they might eat it to.
The third time, they are going to be less than interested in eating it.
After numerous times, you really think they are going to want to keep paying?
Every web site you visit knows your IP address. A little spoofing, a couple e-mails, and The Anti-Mike may not be able to post any more comments to TechDirt for a while.
Absolutely, but a very important distinction with regards to artists/labels utilizing new business models: the dot com-ers were aggregating traffic to sell to someone else (as in ads), where as in this case artists/labels are aggregating traffic in order to sell to THEM, but they're selling them something other th recorded music, which is being used to aggregate the traffic in the first place.
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that it isn't the artists doing the aggregation, it is being done by third party sites who are still trying to sell or deal the eyeballs to the artists. While some artists do have their own active websites with good interaction and all, many more appear to be outsourcing the job to someone else, and only making guest appearances on their own site.
I am a big believer in the theory of when everyone is doing it, it is no longer special and likely past it's stale date. I think in many ways that is what happens to social media sites in general, and what has happened to MySpace. Too much noise, not enough true signal.
It'd be instructive to investigate how profitable music radio stations originally were in their infancy
I think this would be a case similar to the 18th century UK railway boom (and bust), where plenty of money was made but most of the players failed massively. It might also be a bit like the auto industry, which started out with hundreds of players and has ended up today with a small handful holding most of the cards. Even then, they are prone to failure, it seems.
This isn't to say that it's morally WRONG to make 50 million a year as an artist, just that it's perfectly acceptable to be a touring artist making 200k/year. At those expectations, these newer models are far more palletable.
I think you will discover that 200k is a pretty unlikely number. The number of artists making truly huge money is small, and as more and more artists come into the game, the water gets more and more shallow, not deeper. The numbers shown here in the past have proven that there is a move from recorded music sales to live music sales, but the net consumer spending has remained flat. There is little indication that there will be a huge increase in consumer spending. If you double the number of acts, the average take home is cut in half. It is more and more likely that most acts will be working for beer money, not a living, but having to work very hard personally even to get to that point.
All of these various websites and services are all there to take a piece of that ever more shallow pool, selling upcoming artists "positioning" so that they can get noticed, all while the signal to noise ratio gets worse as more and more noise comes in, and less signal gets noticed.
When the acts can't pay, the services will suffer. When the services can't afford to be in business, the artist will suffer. When they all realize they are fighting for the same table scraps, it could get ugly!
saying it was her own fault for having an open WiFi network, suggesting there's something inherently wrong with sharing your WiFi.
There is nothing wrong with sharing you WiFi, but it's like letting someone else drive your car. Don't be shocked if you get a bunch of parking tickets or you car gets seized at the border full of pot or illegal aliens.
At the end of the day, if her internet connection is that important to her, she should protect it.
She was falsely accused multiple times, you would think that maybe she would take a minute to secure her connection.
It's a nice attempt to paint the story as bad (the grandmother angle is so cute!), but the reality is this: She allowed anyone and everyone to use her access, and she is responsible for it.
Generally I think that many of the sites are not building long term business models, but rather are doing the whole concept of aggregating the most eyeballs possible (or in the music case the most ears possible). But as many of the online radio station types of shown, many of these sites don't have business models that properly allow to pay the costs of being in the business.
it is very significant in a business when the models pushed often involve free product. Someone has to pay for things to exist, and if the product is given for free, the money has to some from somewhere else. For the most part, that somewhere else is still pretty murky.
Even YouTube, which is the biggest eyeball catcher of all isn't really a profitable business model.
10-15 years ago it was all about the IPO. Now it's all about having Apple, Microsoft, Google, or similar buy you out (as the IPO market is pretty dead right now in North America). A couple of years from now (maturing time for some of these companies) might be the right time for an IPO.
I just think that in a time where most of the business models are untried and untested, and many show little sign of a route to profitability, it has to make you wonder where they are really going.
Ashley Simpson has less talent and a whole bunch less image, which makes it pretty hard to sell.
Her sister Jessica is a great example of how image and boobs can get you places, for a while. These days, Poor Jess seems to have a hard time getting attention, her move into country music didn't do anything for her career.
Lady Gaga has some talent and a ton of image. Susan Boyle has a ton of talent and some image. Both are within the curve to actually sell.
I talked to many people working for companies that are enabling and embracing new business models, and they were swamped with deal opportunities and discussions.
Sort of reminds me of the old dot com days, plenty of meetings, plenty of deals, plenty of everything, but in the end, very few survivors and very few new business models that really survived.
There are plenty of people out there making deals, I suspect too many of them are trying to position themselves for a buyout or a public offering, and not for any great long term success.
No, sorry, doesn't matter how many posts you make in a row, you cannot misrepresent what I said.
I said it's like signing you name in agreement. Imagine a sheet of paper on the wall that says "This teacher is an idiot" and you add your name on it and say "yeah, I agree". It's pretty much in that sense.
When I join techdirt, I am admitting to enjoying tech and dirt. If I was a member of "I think obama is a dictator ass" then well, draw your conclusions.
-I believe he completely misunderstands the economic concept of scarcity and its contribution to marginal cost.
Actually, scarcity has absolutely nothing to do with marginal cost (the cost to create one more unit), but rather it has to do with supply and demand. Scarcity is what limits supply, and the price is created as a result of the demand, particularly when demand is in excess of supply.
Artificial scarcity is to specifically limit supply where no real supply limit exists. "limited edition" anything where the limit is created only by choice means that supply is constrained only by choice, not by any true shortage.
A music business example would be putting a major "stadium" act on a small night club tour. Those tickets are exceedingly scarce compared to demand, but that scarcity is artificial, because the band could just as easily play a larger room. The true scarcity is their time, not the number of seats. The seat scarcity would be artificially created.
Anyway, what the publishers have done for a long time is create an artificial shortage of books. Essentially, they could very easily print new books are lower priced paperbacks right away, and satisfy the market demand in that manner. However, they manage supply, first putting the book out as a higher price (and quality) hardcover book, and then releasing it over time as a lower cost paperback.
Re: Re: Mixed messages and the music industry ....
The "problem" is that the labels have built their business around needing to have every track paid for (which has never actually happened 100% anyway).
Incorrect. They built their business around selling music. What you are saying is that they should give their product away for free, and then sell, well, nothing.
I don't attack one product and not the other, we are discussing one product and not the other here.
Susan Boyle is one incredibly talented singer, the specific proof that a singer can get over on singing talent without her ass hanging out of her pants (and thank god for that). She is an example of a remarkable talent that swept the world because she is a remarkable talent.
Lady Gaga? "Talent" is a relative term here, unless you are talking about the talent to create an image. Having seen some videos of her pre-fame when she was just another lounge singer (in between stints as a stripper) she is average at best, a reasonable singer like about 10,000 others I have seen in my life. Nothing to write home about. However, once she started being the Gaga persona, with her butt hanging out and such, she took off. It's a triumph of image over content.
As an interesting side note, it has been reported that she spends so much money on image that her tour isn't particularly profitable, as much of the money is put towards maintaining the image and trucking around a huge amount of her personal stuff.
Like I said, a triumph of image over content. Between Gaga and Doyle, I know which one can actually sing, and which one is depending on her hot looks to keep people interested.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just like hardbacks / Paperbacks ?
If I worked "in the industry" you might have a point, but since I don't, I am not a "chill" (sic). I do like your website though, it's very informative.
Wow, you would have to be massively far out of the loop to not realize that Lady Gaga is pretty much a Perez Hilton production end to end. I suspect many of those myspace views come directly off his site. He only mentions he on average about 3 times per day, promotes her like crazy on his radio bits, and has generally jammed her down everyone's throat when she could barely get arrested.
Her luck is that she has a gimmick that is working and connecting, and a record label that has pushed her work all over the world and opened up many markets for her. She's probably near the end of the 15 minutes, but it has been impressive while it has lasted.
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
Re: Journalist
It should be an option, but it shouldn't be forced upon artists or rights holders. End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong (and then supporting none of them).
I notice Mike didn't run the ARStechnica story that showed that 99% of the material on a given torrent site was illegal. But that would be just the wrong message.
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
Re:
NOT!
Actually, I was reading and all I could think of was "I am not the only one who sees the smoke machine and all the shiny mirrors around".
It's funny has heck, and I am glad to see I am not the only one with this view.
On the post: News.com Prevents Falsely Accused Grandmother Of Getting Kicked Off The Internet By The MPAA
Re: Re:
You guys are amazing.
If the women had an open (or compromised) wireless phone on her phone line and someone ran up thousands of dollars of long distances, you know who would be on the hook, right?
The first time, the phone company might eat it.
The second time, they might eat it to.
The third time, they are going to be less than interested in eating it.
After numerous times, you really think they are going to want to keep paying?
Every web site you visit knows your IP address. A little spoofing, a couple e-mails, and The Anti-Mike may not be able to post any more comments to TechDirt for a while.
I DARE YOU.
On the post: Has The Recording Industry Reached The Bargaining Stage Of Grief?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that it isn't the artists doing the aggregation, it is being done by third party sites who are still trying to sell or deal the eyeballs to the artists. While some artists do have their own active websites with good interaction and all, many more appear to be outsourcing the job to someone else, and only making guest appearances on their own site.
I am a big believer in the theory of when everyone is doing it, it is no longer special and likely past it's stale date. I think in many ways that is what happens to social media sites in general, and what has happened to MySpace. Too much noise, not enough true signal.
It'd be instructive to investigate how profitable music radio stations originally were in their infancy
I think this would be a case similar to the 18th century UK railway boom (and bust), where plenty of money was made but most of the players failed massively. It might also be a bit like the auto industry, which started out with hundreds of players and has ended up today with a small handful holding most of the cards. Even then, they are prone to failure, it seems.
This isn't to say that it's morally WRONG to make 50 million a year as an artist, just that it's perfectly acceptable to be a touring artist making 200k/year. At those expectations, these newer models are far more palletable.
I think you will discover that 200k is a pretty unlikely number. The number of artists making truly huge money is small, and as more and more artists come into the game, the water gets more and more shallow, not deeper. The numbers shown here in the past have proven that there is a move from recorded music sales to live music sales, but the net consumer spending has remained flat. There is little indication that there will be a huge increase in consumer spending. If you double the number of acts, the average take home is cut in half. It is more and more likely that most acts will be working for beer money, not a living, but having to work very hard personally even to get to that point.
All of these various websites and services are all there to take a piece of that ever more shallow pool, selling upcoming artists "positioning" so that they can get noticed, all while the signal to noise ratio gets worse as more and more noise comes in, and less signal gets noticed.
When the acts can't pay, the services will suffer. When the services can't afford to be in business, the artist will suffer. When they all realize they are fighting for the same table scraps, it could get ugly!
On the post: News.com Prevents Falsely Accused Grandmother Of Getting Kicked Off The Internet By The MPAA
Re:
On the post: News.com Prevents Falsely Accused Grandmother Of Getting Kicked Off The Internet By The MPAA
There is nothing wrong with sharing you WiFi, but it's like letting someone else drive your car. Don't be shocked if you get a bunch of parking tickets or you car gets seized at the border full of pot or illegal aliens.
At the end of the day, if her internet connection is that important to her, she should protect it.
She was falsely accused multiple times, you would think that maybe she would take a minute to secure her connection.
It's a nice attempt to paint the story as bad (the grandmother angle is so cute!), but the reality is this: She allowed anyone and everyone to use her access, and she is responsible for it.
On the post: Has The Recording Industry Reached The Bargaining Stage Of Grief?
Re: Re:
it is very significant in a business when the models pushed often involve free product. Someone has to pay for things to exist, and if the product is given for free, the money has to some from somewhere else. For the most part, that somewhere else is still pretty murky.
Even YouTube, which is the biggest eyeball catcher of all isn't really a profitable business model.
10-15 years ago it was all about the IPO. Now it's all about having Apple, Microsoft, Google, or similar buy you out (as the IPO market is pretty dead right now in North America). A couple of years from now (maturing time for some of these companies) might be the right time for an IPO.
I just think that in a time where most of the business models are untried and untested, and many show little sign of a route to profitability, it has to make you wonder where they are really going.
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re: Mmmmm...
logic == fail.
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Her sister Jessica is a great example of how image and boobs can get you places, for a while. These days, Poor Jess seems to have a hard time getting attention, her move into country music didn't do anything for her career.
Lady Gaga has some talent and a ton of image. Susan Boyle has a ton of talent and some image. Both are within the curve to actually sell.
On the post: Has The Recording Industry Reached The Bargaining Stage Of Grief?
Sort of reminds me of the old dot com days, plenty of meetings, plenty of deals, plenty of everything, but in the end, very few survivors and very few new business models that really survived.
There are plenty of people out there making deals, I suspect too many of them are trying to position themselves for a buyout or a public offering, and not for any great long term success.
On the post: Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher
Re: Re:
I said it's like signing you name in agreement. Imagine a sheet of paper on the wall that says "This teacher is an idiot" and you add your name on it and say "yeah, I agree". It's pretty much in that sense.
When I join techdirt, I am admitting to enjoying tech and dirt. If I was a member of "I think obama is a dictator ass" then well, draw your conclusions.
On the post: Students Given Detention Just For Becoming 'Fans' Of A Page Making Fun Of A Teacher
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: Re: TAM the amazing TAMHOLE
Actually, scarcity has absolutely nothing to do with marginal cost (the cost to create one more unit), but rather it has to do with supply and demand. Scarcity is what limits supply, and the price is created as a result of the demand, particularly when demand is in excess of supply.
Artificial scarcity is to specifically limit supply where no real supply limit exists. "limited edition" anything where the limit is created only by choice means that supply is constrained only by choice, not by any true shortage.
A music business example would be putting a major "stadium" act on a small night club tour. Those tickets are exceedingly scarce compared to demand, but that scarcity is artificial, because the band could just as easily play a larger room. The true scarcity is their time, not the number of seats. The seat scarcity would be artificially created.
Anyway, what the publishers have done for a long time is create an artificial shortage of books. Essentially, they could very easily print new books are lower priced paperbacks right away, and satisfy the market demand in that manner. However, they manage supply, first putting the book out as a higher price (and quality) hardcover book, and then releasing it over time as a lower cost paperback.
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just like hardbacks / Paperbacks ?
Have a nice day troll.
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re: Mixed messages and the music industry ....
Incorrect. They built their business around selling music. What you are saying is that they should give their product away for free, and then sell, well, nothing.
Not very logical, is it?
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Susan Boyle is one incredibly talented singer, the specific proof that a singer can get over on singing talent without her ass hanging out of her pants (and thank god for that). She is an example of a remarkable talent that swept the world because she is a remarkable talent.
Lady Gaga? "Talent" is a relative term here, unless you are talking about the talent to create an image. Having seen some videos of her pre-fame when she was just another lounge singer (in between stints as a stripper) she is average at best, a reasonable singer like about 10,000 others I have seen in my life. Nothing to write home about. However, once she started being the Gaga persona, with her butt hanging out and such, she took off. It's a triumph of image over content.
As an interesting side note, it has been reported that she spends so much money on image that her tour isn't particularly profitable, as much of the money is put towards maintaining the image and trucking around a huge amount of her personal stuff.
Like I said, a triumph of image over content. Between Gaga and Doyle, I know which one can actually sing, and which one is depending on her hot looks to keep people interested.
On the post: Amazon, Macmillan Fight Over Ebook Prices; After Amazon Removes Macmillan Titles, It Caves To Higher Prices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just like hardbacks / Paperbacks ?
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re:
http://perezhilton.com/2010-02-01-the-grammys-all-you-need-to-know
That is his entire summary of the grammy awards. That should tell you all you need to know.
On the post: Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music
Re: Re:
Her luck is that she has a gimmick that is working and connecting, and a record label that has pushed her work all over the world and opened up many markets for her. She's probably near the end of the 15 minutes, but it has been impressive while it has lasted.
Next >>