Techdirt. Stories filed under "concerts"

And... Jonathan Coulton Crowdsourcing A Piece Of His Next Tour As Well

Mike Masnick — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:57:48 PDT

It would appear that crowdsourcing concerts is suddenly becoming quite popular. Just as we wrote about Andrew Bird crowdsourcing his new South American tour via Songkick, someone points out that Jonathan Coulton (who has experimented with crowdsourcing shows in the past using Eventful), just announced a similar effort via a new ticketing site called BringTheGig. BringTheGig has a slightly different feature set, which is also interesting. The first group of people to pledge to bring a concert to the area (providing enough support to make the show happen) can actually then get their money back if the show itself turns out to be really big. So, this gives incentives for fans to sign up early and to tell all their friends about it.

Here’s how it works. There are 40 funder slots available – basically 40 tickets that go on sale in advance of the rest of them. After two weeks (or sooner), these slots will theoretically be filled, and the rest of the tickets will go on sale. If you are one of these first 40 people, you get your money back if we get more than 160 people to come to the show.

It’s a pretty cool idea I think: get a core of fans to cover what you need to make the show happen, and then incentivize those to spread the word

There are other similar sites, like GigFunder, and Eventful's "Demand It!" feature is still around as well. Songkick's Detour platform also has similar incentives, but through a very different mechanism. Given all this activity, I'm hopeful that we'll start seeing more innovative ways to make live shows more efficient and effective, while also creating new ways for artists to connect with fans and to help fans spread the word about their favorite artists. It seems like a real opportunity that is only just now being explored more deeply.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Does Ticketmaster Undercount Tickets Sold To Underpay?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 8 Dec 2011 05:13:48 PST

Over the years, we've noticed some questionable "accounting" practices in various parts of the entertainment industry. There's recording industry accounting, where labels make a ton of money and most musicians end up in debt. There's Hollywood accounting, where some of the most successful movies of all time are somehow declared "not profitable" so they can avoid paying actors any residuals. Then there is music performance rights accounting, where only the top 200 touring acts get to collect royalty money.

So what about ticket sales for events? Eric Goldman points us to an ongoing lawsuit, in which a producer of events, Club Escapade 2000, is suing Ticketmaster for severely undercounting ticket sales at an event. The event was a soccer match held at the University of Texas El Paso's stadium between two Mexico City soccer teams.

According to Plaintiff, the event was “extremely popular” — traffic was backed up on the highways and news outlets reported large crowds of twenty to forty thousand people attending... Much to Plaintiff’s surprise, Defendant reported that it had sold only 13,151 tickets.... These numbers seemed too low to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff began an investigation of Defendant’s audit reports... Plaintiff allegedly found that on the day before the event, March 24, 2009, Defendant reported that the number of tickets sold was 14,408... The very next day, though, the reported number of sales dropped to 11,098... According to Plaintiff, this was suspicious because there were no refunds or exchanges... Based on this suspicion, Plaintiff hired an expert in digital imaging who examined the video footage of the soccer match... The expert estimated that attendance was likely as high as 24,311.

Kinda makes you wonder if this is standard practice... and if this is why the legacy entertainment guys seem to assume that all fans want to screw them over. Perhaps they're just used to every one else they run into trying to screw them over.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Case Study: How Dave Matthews Band Has Embraced The Modern Music Industry In Extraordinarily Profitable Ways

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:58:34 PST

Over the last few weeks, we've noticed a few of our usual critics attacking the basic claims concerning successful music business models, because some of the bigger concert tours this past year ran into trouble, and because some of those tours seemed to realize they were charging too much. Of course, it's unfortunate when people misunderstand basic statistics and what data shows. First of all, we've never claimed that concerts were the only way to make money in the music business. There are lots of ways to offer scarce goods that have nothing to do with touring. Second, the fact that some big tours had trouble -- and misjudged the market is hardly a condemnation of touring as a money maker. It just means that some tours misjudged the market. This is hardly a surprise. For years, many tours had underpriced tickets, leading to a valuable aftermarket for scalpers. But over the past few years, major acts and venues have tried to capture more of that for themselves, leading them to push the market ever higher. There was obviously a limit as to how high those prices could go, and people have started to figure that out. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

But the key point to recognize is that just because some acts misjudged the market, that's not a condemnation of these other ways to make money. This claim reminds me of similar claims back in the early 1990s about the productivity of computers in the workplace. A few companies did massive implementations that were done poorly, and turned out to be way too costly. And with poor implementation and poor planning, the end result was that these new computer systems didn't increase productivity. Suddenly, there were claims and press coverage about how computers didn't lead to any productivity gain. The mistake was conflating a bad implementation with what would happen if you implemented stuff properly. No one here has said that "just touring" automatically is a successful strategy. That's because it's not true. Instead, a properly implemented multi-prong strategy, that fits with both what the musicians want and their fans want, can work quite well.

A perfect example of that may be the Dave Matthews Band. Slate recently did an article on the massive success of the band. A big part of that, not surprisingly, is a relentless touring schedule. However, as the article notes, DMB is making a lot more money touring than most people realize. It's consistently one of the top earning touring acts in North America, despite not being as "big" a name as the others on the list. In 2010, for example, DMB was the 3rd largest grossing tour in North America, after Bon Jovi and Roger Waters, and ahead of such names as Paul McCartney, Lady Gaga and The Black Eyed Peas. And they did this with significantly lower prices than most of the other acts in the top 10. While tickets to Lady Gaga concerts averaged $98 and Sir Paul's concerts went for a staggering $138.49, DMB's average ticket price was $57.38. And, as the article notes, they did this in a massively profitable way, unlike some concert tours which cost so much as to have them losing money. On top of that, the band uses the famed Grateful Dead model for keeping fans coming back for more: changing up their songs each time, and having fun going off on different jams, that make each concert unique.

But, of course, it's not just about touring. The band has done its own version of CwF+RtB, with over 80,000 fans paying $35 per year for its fan-club (and the 80,000 number is three years old, so I'd imagine the real numbers are now much higher). That's $2.8 million from the fan club alone. Similarly, the band appears to sell a ton of merchandise. The article notes that, back in 1998, the band would sell $200,000 in merchandise per day, while on tour. Obviously, that data is way out of date, but the band seems to have little trouble coming with good "reasons to buy" for its fans.

I have no doubt that the usual critics will mock this, claim it's an exception, or somehow complain that this is somehow "bad." But it seems clear that it's working great for the band itself, and they're quite happy with it. And, really, in the end, that's what these business models are about. Finding the right mix for bands to connect with fans in a meaningful way, while setting up the structure that allows those fans to support the band. DMB seems like a perfect example of a band doing this on a massively large scale.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Live Nation's Plans To Annoy More People?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:32:14 PDT

Last week, we briefly mentioned how sad it was that Ticketmaster/Live Nation's boss Irving Azoff seems so confused into thinking that stronger protectionism really is better for content creators. In that post, I mentioned that last year I spoke with a few top Live Nation execs, who appeared to understand the value of treating customers right, and looking for ways to enable CwF+RtB-style business models. They even talked about using companies like Zappos -- a company which has built up incredibly loyal customers though amazing customer service, even if it means taking a big financial hit itself -- as an example to learn from. I have to admit that I was impressed, but realized the company had a huge negative image to overcome -- and that merging with Ticketmaster wasn't going to help. Still, I thought that it would be quite a story if the company really could embrace that kind of thinking and rebuild its reputation.

So far, it doesn't look good. Beyond Azoff's bizarre anti-consumer tweeting, the company's plans seems to be about as tone deaf to consumer concerns as you can imagine. Now, obviously, this is a giant company, and it has Wall Street investment bankers to please, so it has to tell some sort of numbers-based story. But, the story it's telling is basically "we can squeeze more money out of consumers and artists overseas, so we're going to focus on that," which isn't compelling to anyone (artists, fans or investors -- who note that the company hasn't had as much success overseas).

It seems like perhaps there's a tale of two views at Live Nation: one that's actually focused on building out a sustainable business, and the other that appears to have gotten data happy. I'm a big fan of collecting and analyzing as much data as possible, but it's possible to get lost in that data at times, and lose sight of the big picture. So, right now, the data is telling Live Nation that US fans don't want to pay as much, and US artists want a bigger cut. So it wants to focus elsewhere. But, it seems to be forgetting to figure out why that is. Azoff seems to want to blame file sharing, but that's a red herring. Perhaps the company should look at the company's own image and how widely it's hated out there. People pay for Ticketmaster/Live Nation tickets in spite of the company, not because they like the company.

Azoff apparently scolded investors asking him questions about the company's poor performance, blaming them for not "getting the message." This is the same approach the company recently took in trying to explain its ticket fees, saying that the problem was that fans just didn't get what Ticketmaster was doing. Blaming everyone else for just "not getting" you, isn't an approach that's going to win over many people. You need to actually start showing people through actions.

One of the reasons why the company's margins might be so tight in the US is that it has focused on trying to squeeze every last dime out of fans without giving them enough value in return. Zappos isn't the cheapest retailer out there, but people buy from them because they know the experience is worth it. Perhaps Live Nation/Ticketmaster should take a step back from the data and look at ways to actually wow fans and artists with an experience that over-delivers, rather than has them holding their nose every time they have to hand over money. That is, why not focus on actually adding value, rather than looking for every nook and cranny to charge people more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Ticketmaster Says People Don't Like Service Fees Because We Don't Understand Them

Mike Masnick — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:34:04 PDT

If you follow the music business, you probably already know about or follow Ticketmaster boss Irving Azoff's Twitter feed, which he kicked off earlier this month by calling two different reporters "jerks," and generally jousting with some of his critics. He went quiet for a bit, but caused a bit of a stir over the weekend by announcing (sort of) that Ticketmaster had "full disclosure pricing." Considering just how much hatred there is towards Ticketmaster's "service charges," this certainly picked up some attention.

The only problem? While the tickets Azoff pointed to highlighted prices that included fees (amusingly, the fees on the cheapest ticket markup the official ticket price by a whopping 50%) some quickly discovered that this wasn't, at all, what they expected. That's because despite the implication that these prices now showed you full fees, some noticed another $6.50 fee tacked on at the end. After people pointed that out, Azoff again responded by claiming that Ticketmaster simply can't show you all the fees until it knows how many tickets are being bought and what the shipping method is.

A few hours later, Ticketmaster launched a blog, where the first post tries to delve into this by suggesting that the problem isn't the fees, it's that you don't understand the fees. Yeah, really. This is incredibly tone deaf on Ticketmaster's part. People understand fees just fine. As Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired points out "each dollar that comes out of their wallets is identical." No one cares that Ticketmaster has to pay various third parties, such as "promoters, venues, teams, artists" out of those fees.

Years ago, we discussed a nearly identical situation with phone bills, showing how people were incredibly annoyed with massive unexplained fees, and the telcos insisted they were necessary to "recoup costs." But, as we pointed out, in most businesses you recoup the costs in the list price and don't break out fees. Otherwise, we'd have lots of companies doing this sort of crap: Want a pizza pie? It's just $3, but there's a $3.50 "crust fee," a $9.38 "oven fee," a $4.50 "service fee," and a $2.18 "cleanup fee." Plus tax.

That, of course, is ridiculous and would piss people off -- just as telco fees do and just as Ticketmaster's fees do. If Ticketmaster wanted to make people happy it would stop telling people they need to be better educated about fees -- a subject they don't care about -- and just offer straight up, all-in, pricing. If Ticketmaster has to pay a bit more to some third party because of this, well, why not figure out a way to bake that into the overall price. It's called forecasting, and most other businesses predict their cost of goods sold using various forecasting methods, and it seems rather silly that Ticketmaster apparently cannot.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Artists Realizing It's Time To Offer Cheaper Concert Tickets Directly, And To Get Rid Of Annoying Fees

Mike Masnick — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:35:07 PDT

Recently, we'd been discussing how the concert business for (non-arena) musicians was still doing well for some, but that everyone was getting more and more frustrated about fees and services charges added to ticket prices. We also wrote about how the band The Pixies went direct to fans with concert ticket sales, avoiding some of the annoying middlemen. It looks like more artists are starting to wake up and take notice.

Singer Joe Pug, who you may recall took part in our CwF+RtB experiment last year, and has been experimenting with more fan friendly business models for a while, is trying to do the same with a new $10 Tour. The idea is that all of the shows (with a couple of specific exceptions) on his next tour will cost only $10 -- and he's testing out selling at least some of the tickets directly with no fees at all, and if that goes well, will try to do so for other shows.

There is some precedent here. Corey Smith, who we've written about many times in the past, has used $5 tickets to many of his shows to help him build up his fanbase. In that case, the story went that this helped him connect with many more fans because at $5, it was easy for an existing fan to convince friends to go (or even pay for them to go), leading to many more people getting to see Corey live.

Still, what's most interesting to me is that more and more artists, like Joe, are recognizing how much people hate some aspects of the concert-going experience (mainly dealing with the middlemen who lump on all those fees) and realize that there's a really good way to better connect with fans: which is to cut out that middleman:

A few months back I bought tickets for a concert- which shall remain nameless- only to get manhandled by service charges and by their Newspeak cousins, "convenience fees". The actual price was nearly double the face of the ticket. Half of my money was going to the band I loved, the other half to horse-thieves. Reining in ticket fees has been notoriously difficult, even for artists of great influence. But in a small step, we negotiated to do SOME of the tickets directly through our website. We're going to try this for the Chicago show on 10/16. The first 50 tickets will be available exclusively at my website with zero fees. The amount charged to your credit card will be exactly 10 bucks per ticket. If all goes well we hope to roll out the no-fee ticketing for entire tours.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Music Festival Producer Pre-Sues Bootleggers

Mike Masnick — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:33:14 PDT

Ah, pre-crime. THREsq has a worrisome story of a couple of recent lawsuits by concert producers pre-suing potential bootleggers claiming trademark infringement. Yes, they're claiming trademark infringement for something that hasn't happened yet, and simply listing out hundreds of John Doe and Jane Does who can later be filled in. As a part of this, they're getting law enforcement involved by using the lawsuit to ask the court to order US Marshalls, local and state police and even off-duty officers to go ahead and seize and impound the bootlegged material.

It's really quite something to read the lawsuit which refers to possible events happening in the future: The article notes that it seems unlikely that any defendants will show up in court to defend themselves or to protest the lawsuit, since they haven't done anything yet. So, basically, the lawsuit is allowed because there's no one to contest it, because who's going to contest such a lawsuit? THREsq reasonably points out how troubling this trend is:

The threat of bootleggers is real, of course, but it's based purely on speculation, without evidence of the kind of past specific misconduct that might trigger temporary remedies as seen in criminal proceedings. That seems odd, and perhaps a slippery slope. Why can't any company in America file John Doe trademark action and get police to seize goods they believe will be infringing? What stops this beyond the concert venue?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reminder: Big Concerts Are Not All Of The Live Music Business

Mike Masnick — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:44:19 PDT

Whenever we discuss examples of successful bands who utilize live shows as part of their business model, or when we point to data about how live revenue is growing, people often focus just on the data available for "big concerts" in arenas and amphitheaters. For example, last year, we wrote about a research paper claiming that live revenue couldn't replace recorded music sales revenue. While an interesting bit of research, there were a few problems with it. First, we certainly have never claimed that live alone is the business model for musicians. Live is one component that seems to work well for many, but most of the business models we talk about involve a variety of revenue streams. Second, as we've shown recently, the "recorded music" revenue tends to go almost entirely to the record label, not the artist. So, from an artist's perspective, they're usually not "replacing" very much. But, most importantly, the data itself seemed to only focus on giant concerts: the kind that plays at arenas and amphitheaters. This sort of data is out there, but it's not everything. Yet, with various reports of financial problems at Live Nation, some critics are rushing around to claim that all the folks who said "live" would "replace" recorded music revenue were clearly wrong. In fact, we've had one critic submit about 30 such stories.

But, of course, while Live Nation has something of a death grip on arenas and amphitheaters, that's not how most musicians play live. Ian Rogers points us to a wide-ranging, but quite interesting, interview with indie band booking king Tom Windish, where he notes that in the realm he's working in, things are fantastic. It's in the middle of the interview, where he's asked about whether the business is "hurting":

Are promoters hurting this year?

We're not. It seems that Live Nation is. I don't really pay attention to the side of the business that is arena or amphitheatre driven. People are excited about seeing a lot of our bands. I hope more of them get popular. That would be great.

What's hurting the live business overall?

It's a combination of things. The price (of shows), and the surcharges; I think that's what is souring people the most. They are ridiculous.

Most of your roster works with cheaper ticket prices.

Yeah, I would say that most work in the $15 to $20 range before service charges are applied which are very high.

There are two key points in there concerning live music. The first is that his business -- which represents a ton of top independent acts, isn't hurting. We've spoken to a bunch of musicians who fit into that same category, and keep hearing basically the same story. If you're in the range where you're performing clubs and small theaters at $15/$20 a head, and have a decent fanbase, you can do quite well.

The second point, of course, is the sheer inefficiency of the ticketing process that has allowed middlemen to add all sorts of annoying fees and surcharges. It still seems like that's an area ripe for change.

Later in the interview, Windish makes another point that we've discussed in the past as well. "Live" doesn't necessarily mean having to go all the way around the country. It can really mean building up a really strong local audience, and gradually expanding it. That was a key part of Corey Smith's successful strategy, in that he kept touring locally, and kept slowly expanding his geographic footprint. Even today, his (massive) success is still located mostly in the southern US, and he's admitted that the next step is to slowly start to expand into the northeast. In the interview here, Windish makes a similar suggestion for bands. After talking about how many bands mistakenly just focus on playing big "festivals," the interviewer and Windish point out that building up a local audience (i.e., the old fashioned way of doing things) still works:

If a band doesn't land a festival, it can work within a region and explore opportunities.

That's a good way to do it, too. That's kind of an old school way of doing it. We have a lot of bands, especially foreign bands, that will come here and focus on New York for a week. Then, they go home to France or the U.K. and keep playing where they live. Then they come back here, play New York more, add in L.A. and, maybe, add in Toronto. Then they will go back and work in Europe again. The buzz that is generated in Europe will trickle over here pretty much immediately.

The point is, there are lots of interesting strategies that various acts can use to be successful well playing live shows -- and simply assuming that "live doesn't work" because Live Nation is having a down year sort of misses the point.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Others Sued For Patent Infringement For Appearing Larger Than Life

Mike Masnick — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:59:10 PST

Every time you think you've seen the most ridiculous patent infringement lawsuit out there, you only need to wait a day or two before another, more ridiculous, one shows up. The latest is that Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, the Los Angeles Lakers and the band the Pussycat Dolls have all been sued for patent infringement. Seriously. The patent in question (6669346) is for a very large display system for a performance. Basically, it's for the sort of massive screens used at various concerts (and apparently, some sporting events). Seeing as I doubt that Spears, Timberlake or the Pussycat Dolls built these screens themselves, shouldn't there be some sort of patent exhaustion issue here, where (if there's any actual infringement, which seems questionable enough) the liable parties should be whoever made these giant screesn?

Of course the lawsuit was filed in East Texas, and it's amusing to see the reasoning for this: according to the lawsuit, all of the performers likely had residents from East Texas who attended some of their concerts, and thus it makes sense. As for the Lakers, well, their games are broadcast in East Texas (even if the screen in question is in LA and probably not of much use or concern to those watching at home in East Texas). So, apparently, these days you don't just have to be an innovative company to get sued for patent infringement. You can just be a rockstar or a sports team...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Live Nation Working To Turn Website Into More Of A Platform

Mike Masnick — Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:22:00 PST

Live Nation gets a bit of a bad reputation for some of the way it handles large stadium shows, but of the "big" music industry players, it's actually one of the more interesting and better positioned companies out there, because it really has aligned itself to benefit from the sale of scarcities, rather than the sale of music itself. It does have some legacy issues, such as huge commitments to some large acts and a distracting merger fight with Ticketmaster, but the company is still worth watching. It's been trying to do more and more with its website, to make it something of a destination/e-commerce play, and its latest move is to make it more of a platform. Both artists and fans will be able to upload concert footage, as well as various community features (wikis, reviews, Twitter streams, fan Q&As and more). It increasingly seems like Live Nation is trying to enable a platform where fans and artists can connect, and on which fans can buy (mainly concert tickets, but other things as well). It's a smart move, but I wonder whether or not Live Nation ends up competing with a band's own web presence. What could be cool is if Live Nation also makes it so an artist can integrate many of these features into their own site as well. In the meantime, though, we're once again seeing why now is a great time to be a musician. There are so many different services that help enable artists to both connect with fans and set up business models.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Band Tries Pay What You Want Concerts

Mike Masnick — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:36:33 PDT

Pete alerts us to the news that the band Lotus is trying out a pay what you want tour. They apparently worked out a deal with Ticketweb to basically let people pick prices anywhere from $1 to $20 (no $0 option). They've also tried to put an incentive in place to pay more: if you spend more than $15, you get free downloads from the band. It's another interesting model, though I'm not sure it makes as much sense as some other models. Again, concert tickets are a scarce good, and doing pay what you want on a scarce good is a lot riskier. Still, it's yet another experiment that'll be interesting to follow. I think I like K-OS's experiment with letting people pay what they want on the way out of a concert better. Still, experiments are good, so it's nice to see another one.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Nettwerk Testing Its 'Pay On The Way Out' Concerts

Mike Masnick — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:52:00 PDT

Terry McBride, of Nettwerk, an interesting label based in Canada, has been running a whole series of interesting experiments that show how a modern record label can still be useful. When I saw McBride speak at Midem earlier this year, he mentioned an experiment he was running, which I never really wrote about. However, Nancy Baym points out that it's starting to get some press. The idea is a free concert to attend... where you're asked to pay what you think it was worth on the way out. Nettwerk artist k-os is doing this, setting up a "Karma table" where you can also get a free copy of k-os' "fan-mixed" album. This was the other experiment Nettwerk is running: rather than letting fans remix the album, they released all the stems so that fans could mix the album itself -- and then they're releasing both the best fan-mixed versions and the professionally mixed versions.

It's an interesting experiment, and it will be worth watching (especially if McBride is willing share any of the actual results). It does seem like a risky move, because you're taking on the whole upfront cost of putting on the event -- giving away a scarcity, rather than an infinite good. However, depending on how the rest of it is structured they could end up making some decent money out of it. I'm just not sure it's really the best model, since giving away the scarcity for free gets much costlier much faster.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Live Concerts Can't Support The Existing Recording Industry... But Did Anyone Ever Say They Would?

Mike Masnick — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:32:00 PDT

Whenever we talk about the importance of freeing the infinite and charging for the scarce when it comes to music, we end up having people try to simplify that down to "make money on concerts." That's never been true, however. While we do think performances are one scarcity that is worth exploring, and which has proven to be quite lucrative for many performers -- both large and small -- we've never thought that live concerts alone would suffice as the business model. There are other, more important scarcities, such as access and attention, that can be much more lucrative. Still, it's worth exploring how well live concerts alone could do in replacing recording industry revenue, and in a long (80 pages) and thorough paper by Mark Schulz (a law professor), exactly that exploration occurs (thanks to the anonymous reader who sent this in). It's well worth reading, as there's plenty of food for thought. Basically, he points out that free file sharing can help many artists in numerous ways, but he's not convinced that touring alone can help. He goes through a pretty thorough explanation for why touring alone isn't enough -- including the fact that a disproportionate amount of the profits from live performances tends to go to a rather small number of artists, just as the number of musicians creating music is exploding.

While I think the paper is worth reading, and makes a ton of good points, there are a few problems with it. First, I don't know many people who seriously think that touring alone would be the new business model. Most people think that it's one component among a variety of new business models that are available. And, indeed, Schulz is good about mentioning some of the alternative additional business models out there. But, then he sort of ignores them in going back to discussing how touring alone isn't enough. It's sort of a nice strawman, but it's besides the point, since almost no one really believes that touring alone is the model. Then, there's the issue of extrapolating out from the existing "touring" market, most of which really looks at bigger tours, rather than at the market for local bands playing local shows. And, while he does include a discussion on making the live performance business "more productive," I'm not sure he really takes into account some of what's been happening -- such as the efforts Jonathan Coulton puts into building up a critical mass in a certain area before parachuting in for a live performance. The ability to do such things only will grow over time, and not enough attention is paid to them. In fact, we're already seeing live music bring in more money than recorded music in some markets.

So, while it's a very good paper, and I agree with the overall strawman conclusion (touring alone isn't enough to replace the entire recording industry revenue), I'm not sure that's meaningful or really tells the full story. Touring does and will continue to work incredibly well for some bands, it will be a component of other bands' business models, and it won't be a part of others'. But there are plenty of different business models that can deal with that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reznor Does It Again: Releases Free EP Of Unreleased Tracks From NIN, Jane's Addiction To Support Tour

Mike Masnick — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:54:26 PDT

Trent Reznor sure has a way of releasing new experiments just before I'm about to give a presentation about him. He did it right before my MidemNet case study about his experiments, and now that I'm getting ready to an updated (and expanded!) version of the presentation at next week's Leadership Music Digital Summit, Reznor has launched a new website called NIN|JA 2009 in support of the new tour Nine Inch Nails is doing with Jane's Addiction (and Street Sweeper). The site has a streaming playlist from all three bands, along with the ability to download an entirely free EP of unreleased tracks (two from each band) in exchange for your email. And, not surprisingly, the page lets you get more info on the tour.

It's not particularly different than the release of The Slip, but shows that he's continued to combine these two factors of connecting with fans (often via free music) and immediately giving them a real reason to buy. Oh yeah -- and he still did it in a fun way for the fans. Last night, on Twitter, he alerted people that the site would be going live today, but then had fun with it this morning -- giving people a 3 minute countdown following by a bit of joking around, first backing it up to 5 minutes, saying someone had kicked the plug out of the wall, then geekily pretending to be a clueless Windows user:

trent_reznor: So... anybody know what it means when your PC's screen goes all blue and wont do anything? Give me a sec here.
trent_reznor: An exception has occured at 0028:C11B3ADC in VxD DiskTSD(03) 000016660. It may be possible to continue normally. ????
trent_reznor: Come on, people - you know me better than that.

And with that, the site launched. Time to go update the presentation...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

No Doubt: Buy A Concert Ticket, Download All Our Songs

Mike Masnick — Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:17:00 PST

Slowly, but surely, more bands are starting to figure it out: the music is free. Whether they want to believe it or not, the actual music is free, so you might as well get it out there and then focus on selling scarcities. The latest example (which a ton of you have sent in), is the band No Doubt, who is giving away their entire catalog of music as a download, for folks who buy certain concert tickets. Now, obviously, if someone wants, they could go download all that music already, but effectively the band is admitting that the music is free, and the money is in the scarcity of concert tickets: so if you're going to pay for that scarcity, why not make sure that the fan knows all your music?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reznor 'Leaks' 400 GB Of High Def Concert Footage

Mike Masnick — Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:29:00 PST

Trent Reznor is making it awfully difficult for me to finish the presentation I'm giving about him next week at MidemNet, because he keeps on doing stuff that should be mentioned in that presentation (I may have to ask the MidemNet folks for more time!). The latest is a post on the NIN.com site (which, annoyingly, doesn't have permalinks for his posts -- though others repost it in the forums on the site) saying:

The internet is full of surprises these days.
I was contacted by a mysterious, shadowy group of subversives who SOMEHOW managed to film a substantial amount (over 400 GB!) of raw, unedited HD footage from three separate complete shows of our Lights in the Sky tour. Security must have been lacking at these shows because the quality of the footage is excellent.

If any of you could find a LINK to that footage I'll bet some enterprising fans could assemble something pretty cool.

Oh yeah, you didn't hear this from me.

posted by trent reznor at 12:56pm

It's stuff like this that makes fans love Reznor that much more. While bands like Radiohead tried to get people to pay just to remix their songs, Reznor makes it fun to be a fan. As the link above to the forum notes, the content is now available via BitTorrent, and everyone at NIN headquarters is looking forward to what comes out of it -- though, they point out that with so much high def video, it's really mainly targeted at expert users first, and amateurs are probably better off waiting a bit until other copies are made available in easier to handle formats.

Funny to see this in contrast to how Warner Music and the other record labels are dealing with online videos, where they demand money for every usage, pissing off the very musicians they're supposed to represent. Once again, Reznor is leading the way. I'm just hoping he takes a little time off so that I can get this presentation done and not have it be out of date on the day of the presentation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Once Again, Concert Business Sets New Records

Mike Masnick — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:24:00 PST

While people who keep thinking that the "recording industry" is actually the "music industry" keep insisting that the business is in serious trouble, plenty of evidence of the actual market suggests this is a great time to be in the "music business." More musicians are making and distributing music than at any time in the past thanks to much cheaper means of production and distribution. And, as Rose M. Welch points out, the concert business continues to thrive, setting new records yet again. Last year we noted that 2007 was the best ever year for the live music business, and it appears that 2008 surpassed 2007 by 13%, even in the midst of one of the biggest economic downturns most of us have ever lived through. There is some concern about how the economy will impact 2009, but even if concerts decrease next year, it will be because of the overall economy, not because of any problem with "internet piracy," which has actually done plenty to help drive larger audiences to concerts by increasing the fanbases of many musicians.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Can Concert Promoters Become The New Record Labels?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:13:00 PST

A little over a year ago, the recording industry was surprised to learn that Madonna wasn't signing a new record label contract, but instead was signing a deal with Live Nation, a big concert promoter, to handle pretty much everything having to do with her business, including releasing new CDs. The WSJ Magazine is running a long feature story about Live Nation, its founder and its ongoing strategy, wondering if it's the new business model for the recording industry. Basically, the guy behind Live Nation knows that there's good money in concert promoting, but that the margins are low. So, he's betting on a few of these "360 deals" where he gets a much larger margin on all other aspects of the business.

It's an interesting strategy that appears to be a step in the right direction, but it's unclear if it really is the future of the industry. Live Nation's strategy seems pretty risky. It involves huge upfront payments for a small number of star performers (whose older, more well-known, music is still under the copyright of earlier labels). It also doesn't seem to do much to embrace new technologies and distribution methods. Instead, it's just this guy making a grab for some big names, and trying to consolidate all their sources of revenue, taking a cut of each one. There's something to be said for that, but it would probably work better in combination with newer technologies and music distribution means -- and without those huge upfront costs that may sink the whole operation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Trent Reznor Continues To Show Different Ways To Connect With Fans

Mike Masnick — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:50:00 PDT

Back when Trent Reznor was still signed to Universal Music, he tested out his own form of a promotional campaign for his latest album: he started hiding USB keys with songs off of the album in the bathroom at his various concerts. Fans would find the USB keys, bring them home and upload the songs -- making it into a huge event, generating much more interest around the album. Now that he's independent and testing out all sorts of interesting business model experiments, he's also doing plenty to connect directly to his biggest fans. Take, for example, this story in the LA Times about Reznor hiding concert tickets around Los Angeles, under rocks and in drainpipes, and then putting up coordinates and clues on the Nine Inch Nails website, sending fans racing across the city to see if they can find the free tickets. While it may be a little silly, it is yet another way for Reznor to build up a really loyal fanbase. He's making being a fan fun. Sure, it's not for everyone, but it's certainly adding value to the "true fans" that support Reznor.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lyle Lovett: Albums Sold? 4.6 Million. Money Made From Album Sales? $0

Mike Masnick — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:32:19 PDT

Every time we talk about music industry business models, we get some folks who have to chime in with some claim about how musicians should be able to sell their music just like they have for years. Of course, the truth is that it's quite rare for any musician to make money from selling their albums, as has been pointed out for years. The latest to make that point is Lyle Lovett. Reader Rose M. Welch sends us this link to a story about Lyle Lovett, pointing out that in two decades of making music, selling 4.6 million albums, he's "never made a dime" from album sales, but has instead used those record sales to make money on tour:

"Records are very powerful promotional tools to go out and be able to play on the road..."

He does go on to say, however, that he thinks music sales should be self-sustaining. Of course, if he can make money from playing on the road, and giving away the music means it's an even more "powerful promotional tool," then why not focus on that? At least he seems open to new ideas:

"If a major label is interested in working with me after these next two records and is able to come up with a strategy that does engage some of the new technology in a way that can benefit everybody, I'd be very interested in that."

The problem, of course, is that most record labels aren't looking at using technology in a way that can benefit everyone. In the mind of your typical record exec, it's the recording industry against anyone else -- and if others are benefiting, that's a sign that the industry is losing. The idea that everyone can benefit doesn't even register.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Trent Reznor Continues To Show How Free Music Works In A Business Model

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:31:00 PDT

After his Ghosts I-IV experiment that proved to be a huge success, Trent Reznor wasted little time in releasing the next Nine Inch Nails album as a completely free download. And, of course, he didn't just give it away and pray. At the same time as he released the album, he notified fans of his latest concert.

Now, in an attempt to make that concert (whose tickets are a scarce good people will pay for) even more valuable, he's giving away free tracks of all of the opening acts on the tour. In other words, he's giving people even more reasons to pay to go to the concert. He's giving away that infinite good (the music) to make those scarce goods (the tickets) more valuable. This fits with the model we were discussing just a few weeks ago, of bands giving free downloads to anyone who buys a concert ticket, to boost the value of that ticket. Thanks to everyone who sent this in.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bands Should Give Away Their Music With Every Concert Ticket Sold

Mike Masnick — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:48:00 PDT

Well-known music industry commentator Bob Lefsetz has wavered back and forth on the question of whether or not music should be free, but lately it seems that he's gone completely into the "free" camp -- which is nice to see. One of his latest posts explains why bands should figure out ways to give away their music with each concert ticket. As he points out, concert revenue is where most bands make their money these days, so you want to increase the value of those tickets as much as possible. And, generally speaking, many people go to concerts to hear the music they already know. So the more the band can make sure people actually know the band's songs, the happier the fans are going to be at concerts (and the more they'll be willing to pay).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Musicians Whining About Fans With Mobile Phones

Mike Masnick — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:38:25 PDT

This past Friday night my favorite band was in town, so I went out to see them perform at a club in San Francisco. It was a fun time and they put on a great show (as they usually do) -- and it struck me early on that, even though the club was mobbed, and every once in a while I saw someone pull out a mobile phone to snap a photo or take a video, most people were just dancing and enjoying the show. Apparently, that's not necessarily the case everywhere. PicturePhoning alerts us to an article where a bunch of musicians are whining about fans in the audience with mobile phones. While they do make some interesting points about how fans these days are so focused on documenting their experiences that they might miss the actual experience, the whole "controversy" seems overblown. If the experience is good, the experience is good, and why should the musicians care how the fans experience it? And, as I can tell you from my experience on Friday night, when the experience is top notch, most people don't bother to pull out their mobile phones. So, perhaps rather than worrying about what the fans are doing, musicians should concentrate on putting on a better show.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Musicians Leveraging Mobile Phones To Communicate With Fans... But Need To Be Careful With Ads

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:47:47 PDT

The most powerful uses of new technologies are when they allow someone to do something that couldn't have been done before, rather than just doing the same old thing in a different way. That's why it's interesting to see how some musicians are embracing the fact that nearly everyone these days has a mobile phone by offering mobile-based services that increase the value of attending concerts. The article includes examples of a text message to Lollapalooza attendees offering them a chance to enter a guitar-playing contest that gave the winner a new guitar and a chance to play on stage with a band. Some musicians have competitions where they can win better seats via a text message. Prince asked fans leaving a concert to send a text message to his website, where the messages were displayed.

The article then goes on to talk about the marketing potential of all of this -- where these musicians can supposedly now market to these fans, but that's the wrong way to look at it. Fortunately, even those marketers quoted in the article admit that they need to tread carefully when it comes to marketing, admitting that the mobile phone is "sacred." However, the temptation will probably be too strong for some to overcome -- and that's going to be risky. Those who are embracing text messaging with those attending concerts should recognize that text messaging is simply a completely new way to communicate and interact with fans -- rather than just a one-way street to pitch them. The good news is that many of the experiments described recognize exactly that. However, the musicians should realize that this increased communication will pay benefits in a different way -- making more loyal fans, more willing to go to more shows (and potentially even pay more for those shows). Greedily spamming someone's phone with a pitch risks losing all of that benefit, for a very minor short-term return.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story