In theory you're absolutely right. Having lived in Bulgaria throughout the last 4 years, I can tell you Gowever that in the case of Borisov and GERB, what you describe is not the case.
He's basically the strong leader of the party and you better do what he says... :/
I was in a mentoring session at the music biz conference, where I gave a couple of record label holders advice... and for them separating the definitions of content vs product turned out to be eye-opening and really helped them think beyond only selling copies. So while not immediately relevant (and perhaps even confusing) for some readers, I think the people who are actively involved in 'selling content' will benefit from this distinction. :)
"All that other crap brings more value to a good artist's music"
If it's crap, then how does it add value to the music? I don't think there are many people that think Metallica's music is better due to the merchandise. But the merchandise wouldn't be valuable if it weren't for the music.
As for this:
"This article has nothing to do with how music should be marketed/sold. It has to do with how people expect artists to just pump out great music for free. Then tell them to create a merch line to fund it. Ridiculous!"
I'm not sure we're talking about the same article here. I haven't stated such a thing anywhere. However the reality is, after more than 10 years of fighting digital piracy, very often artists are forced to 'compete with free'. I want to help artists do that.
That does not mean creating a merch line to fund their music. Merch lines are usually not thought out very well, IMO.
Actually I've argued in the past that the package is the product. Nobody wants the package without the content of course, but that's what people pay for. I'm coming from a marketing perspective here.
This article is not about making 'stealing music' seem okay. This article is about helping artists innovate and understanding that they can make more money beyond selling copies. Copies will always be part of the mix of products released by artists.
So the question is: have you ever paid a musician directly for making music?
That sounds like donation or commissioning.
I think the direct payment you're talking about is actually an indirect payment, by purchasing copies of the music.
If you purchased those songs and album, then why don't you own those songs?
You own copies. Those are tangible, arguably, though marketing professors might classify them as services because of the limited ownership one has over digital copies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics)
Since you're calling me out, let's discuss healthcare and teachers then.
A doctor is paid for a specific service; that would be like a fan commissioning an artist, one-to-one.
As for teachers, there are many different types of teachers. Some create content; most don't. Most are paid to recite other people's content. They are paid directly for their service. You could compare that to a live performance of a cover band.
But really, to make these analogies work, we'd have to get a lot more detailed. And frankly, I don't feel like writing a 5-page essay about the similarities between healthcare/music or education/music, to defend a point which doesn't need to be defended through such abstract comparisons.
If you want to go ahead with it... Please do. I expect 1,000 words by 5pm tomorrow.
Same. I personally don't care that much about special edition DVDs either.
So I buy music through Beatport and other places, but 'buying music' omits detail. What I actually buy is the copy of the music. I don't own the music, I own the copy.
So when in the article I speak about donation and commission being the only way to pay for music, I mean it in the most literal sense. And let's face it, donation and commission are not the way most end consumers like us spend money on music.
We're saying the exact same thing though. I'm not sure why you're so intent on disagreeing with me, since we appear to be on the same side. Our rationale must be equally insane ;-)
"Why would the service pay for the license if the music wasn't involved ?"
Exactly! The content is what makes the license worth paying for.
License is the product/service for which a financial transaction is made.
The content is what gives that product value.
If music was the product, how could there be so many different ways to pay for music?
Hope that makes it more clear. If you still disagree with me, please try to explain without using examples, so that I can understand where our views differ. My goal is to help artists make money, so if I can help you do that, let me know.
You paid for the copy, which was made valuable by the content.
But the same content can be used to add value to a plethora of products; different types of copies (FLAC, MP3, WAV, CD, vinyl), movies or games (through licensing), tangible goods (by use of the music in ads), etc.
So when you 'pay for music', what do you get in exchange?
A subscription. A CD/download. A live show.
Those are the products. The 'music' is the content that gives those products value. You pay for the music indirectly, but the product you pay for directly is not the music itself.
Actually, it's not about asking musicians to become something that they are not.
Music has never been the product for an end consumer. This is a constant and in that sense nothing has changed, so nobody has to change necessarily.
By all means, talented people should focus on when their talents lie, but that does not take away that 'music' is not the tangible product or service that's being paid for.
So let's take the examples you mention:
- 'Free listening' or subscription listening (the ads ultimately pay the income to the artist; artist provides music through the license; service pays for license to get the music (not for the music) - the license is made valuable because of the content);
- Direct license (not sure why an end consumer would do that, but same thing; they pay money for the license that's made valuable by the content - not the content itself);
- Live performance (people pay for a ticket / experience).
A plumber fixing your pipe is quite tangible. Before: pipe broken, after: pipe fixed. A doctor and teacher... well... I have too much to say about the healthcare and education system to drop into a comment and still stay on-topic, but I think we're comparing apples and oranges now.
The point is that the tangible (product) becomes valuable through the intangible (content & connection), but that the two should not be confused.
They get a live show.
They get a copy.
They get a t-shirt or a game.
Those are the products. Music is what gives them value. Music itself is not a product, since it's impossible for an end consumer to pay just for the music other than through donation or commission.
Besides that, my point wasn't that he's not selling products. My point is that his music itself is not the product. Perhaps the creators of the games/films are commissioning, which is one of the few ways to pay directly for music. And then of course there are licenses and things like that.
But for the end consumer, what is the product?
The copy of the game or the movie. The ticket to the movie in the cinema, etc.
On the post: EU Member Bulgaria Halts ACTA, Minister Of Economy Offers Resignation
Re:
On the post: EU Member Bulgaria Halts ACTA, Minister Of Economy Offers Resignation
Re: Separation of powers
He's basically the strong leader of the party and you better do what he says... :/
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: I guess he actually ment "Commodity"
And I think I explained why it matters: it's significant that I'm using the marketing definition of product as opposed to the dictionary definition.
Your first line, to me, really sums up the difference between content and product:
"you are purchasing the actual songs, the content, that is why you buy the CD with the songs on it."
The content is what makes the product valuable and worth exchanging money over.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: You've got it backwards
If it's crap, then how does it add value to the music? I don't think there are many people that think Metallica's music is better due to the merchandise. But the merchandise wouldn't be valuable if it weren't for the music.
As for this:
"This article has nothing to do with how music should be marketed/sold. It has to do with how people expect artists to just pump out great music for free. Then tell them to create a merch line to fund it. Ridiculous!"
I'm not sure we're talking about the same article here. I haven't stated such a thing anywhere. However the reality is, after more than 10 years of fighting digital piracy, very often artists are forced to 'compete with free'. I want to help artists do that.
That does not mean creating a merch line to fund their music. Merch lines are usually not thought out very well, IMO.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: I have to partially disagree
Actually I've argued in the past that the package is the product. Nobody wants the package without the content of course, but that's what people pay for. I'm coming from a marketing perspective here.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What did you buy?
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the question is: have you ever paid a musician directly for making music?
That sounds like donation or commissioning.
I think the direct payment you're talking about is actually an indirect payment, by purchasing copies of the music.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You own copies. Those are tangible, arguably, though marketing professors might classify them as services because of the limited ownership one has over digital copies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics)
Since you're calling me out, let's discuss healthcare and teachers then.
A doctor is paid for a specific service; that would be like a fan commissioning an artist, one-to-one.
As for teachers, there are many different types of teachers. Some create content; most don't. Most are paid to recite other people's content. They are paid directly for their service. You could compare that to a live performance of a cover band.
But really, to make these analogies work, we'd have to get a lot more detailed. And frankly, I don't feel like writing a 5-page essay about the similarities between healthcare/music or education/music, to defend a point which doesn't need to be defended through such abstract comparisons.
If you want to go ahead with it... Please do. I expect 1,000 words by 5pm tomorrow.
;-)
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: I guess he actually ment "Commodity"
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: product
http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/intro_Product.html
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re:
So I buy music through Beatport and other places, but 'buying music' omits detail. What I actually buy is the copy of the music. I don't own the music, I own the copy.
So when in the article I speak about donation and commission being the only way to pay for music, I mean it in the most literal sense. And let's face it, donation and commission are not the way most end consumers like us spend money on music.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why would the service pay for the license if the music wasn't involved ?"
Exactly! The content is what makes the license worth paying for.
License is the product/service for which a financial transaction is made.
The content is what gives that product value.
If music was the product, how could there be so many different ways to pay for music?
Hope that makes it more clear. If you still disagree with me, please try to explain without using examples, so that I can understand where our views differ. My goal is to help artists make money, so if I can help you do that, let me know.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Lost in translation?
But the same content can be used to add value to a plethora of products; different types of copies (FLAC, MP3, WAV, CD, vinyl), movies or games (through licensing), tangible goods (by use of the music in ads), etc.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Lost in translation?
A subscription. A CD/download. A live show.
Those are the products. The 'music' is the content that gives those products value. You pay for the music indirectly, but the product you pay for directly is not the music itself.
Does that clear it up a little?
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re:
Music has never been the product for an end consumer. This is a constant and in that sense nothing has changed, so nobody has to change necessarily.
By all means, talented people should focus on when their talents lie, but that does not take away that 'music' is not the tangible product or service that's being paid for.
So let's take the examples you mention:
- 'Free listening' or subscription listening (the ads ultimately pay the income to the artist; artist provides music through the license; service pays for license to get the music (not for the music) - the license is made valuable because of the content);
- Direct license (not sure why an end consumer would do that, but same thing; they pay money for the license that's made valuable by the content - not the content itself);
- Live performance (people pay for a ticket / experience).
A plumber fixing your pipe is quite tangible. Before: pipe broken, after: pipe fixed. A doctor and teacher... well... I have too much to say about the healthcare and education system to drop into a comment and still stay on-topic, but I think we're comparing apples and oranges now.
The point is that the tangible (product) becomes valuable through the intangible (content & connection), but that the two should not be confused.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They get a live show.
They get a copy.
They get a t-shirt or a game.
Those are the products. Music is what gives them value. Music itself is not a product, since it's impossible for an end consumer to pay just for the music other than through donation or commission.
That's my point.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: meh
They're not buying music. They're buying digital copies of a music recording.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re: Re:
But for the end consumer, what is the product?
The copy of the game or the movie. The ticket to the movie in the cinema, etc.
That is the product.
On the post: Why Music Is Not A Product & Three Reasons Why That's A Good Thing
Re:
Next >>