Pretty much all economic growth these days is derived from exploiting infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable. It’s the source of economic growth.

All economic growth? That’s a pretty sweeping statement. Evidence?

Not true at all. We’ve also shown economic research on how this works at a macro level. Yet, when we do, folks like yourself whine that “well that’s on a macro level, how does it work for the artist.” It’s as if our critics can’t keep two separate thoughts in their head at the same time.

Again, economic research and facts on the ground business results are different things. And please point specifically where I’ve written–or “whined”–that it can’t work on either the macro or micro level. Or do you just hurl your insults indiscriminately?

Um. Ok. If you want to call it that. You’re wrong. It’s got nothing to do with fundraising…We’ve already talked about bands who raise money for making new content via fan club subscriptions, which is *hardly* fundraising. And we’ve talked about bands that make new music thanks to corporate sponsorship, which is hardly “fundraising.” But, apparently Lostsailor knows all…

Your recognition of my omniscience is flattering, but misplaced. However, whatever you want to label it, member subscriptions and corporate sponsorships are and always have been core elements of fundraising. Nonprofits do this all the time.

Sure. There’s lot of experimenting, but you don’t want to be on the wrong side of the boat when it goes down. Because when it goes down, it’ll go down quickly and take a lot with it.

Talk about knowing it all! The experimenting is a great thing, and hopefully more artists, bands, and yes even record labels will continue. But I think you’re vastly overestimating the demise of the recording industry. While overall revenues for the industry have fluctuated and have seen a slight dip in the last two years, that’s to be expected with the technological shift from physical to digital distribution, but revenue from digital distribution is still growing. Lots of people, it seems, don’t mind paying for digital music.

In other words, there’s still money to be made, and the record labels will keep bailing to keep the boat afloat for some time. They’ll also have a rather robust life raft available should the boat actually founder.

And, again, what you ignore, conveniently, is the evidence we’ve pointed to about how embracing these concepts greatly ENLARGES your market, so that it IS ratcheted up enormously. Pesky details.

Haven’t ignored it at all. One of the pesky details is whether it enlarges your market of paying customers enough to sustain your business. You keep saying that the increase is enormous, yet there is little actual data in any quantity (as opposed to anecdotal “data” such as the subject of the original post here) to support that.

Uh, no again. I never understand this complaint. It’s as if people seem to think that if musicians embrace this model that they alone have to manage the marketing. Right now, a band makes most of its money from concert touring. Do you whine and complain that a band has to focus all its efforts on setting up shows and such? Of course not. Because most bands have managers who do that stuff. Same is true in other models as well.

It’s clear you don’t understand. Of course major acts have support in terms of managers, marketers, road crews, and promoters, all expensive. Smaller acts will have fewer resources and will have to do more of this themselves, especially the lower down the scale you go.

Major acts can make quite a handsome living from concert tours, others perhaps less so. They’re already doing it. Which is part of the point. All the “scarcities” are already being sold, generally for quite high prices. The increase in an artist’s “market” has to be more than huge to make up for the lost revenue from free music distribution, and that market has to be prepared to pay exorbitant prices (ticket prices for concerts have already been increasing at multiples of the CPI). At some point there will be a ceiling.

Anyway. We’re back to our usual scenario of us clearly not agreeing on this. I see no reason to continue the discussion. You believe that the economics don’t work. I’ve seen enough economic evidence to see that it does. We’ll see who’s right soon enough.

You are incorrect. It’s not that I don’t believe the economics don’t work or can’t work. And I know that the limited evidence has convinced you, but it’s convinced you that everyone in the entertainment industry should immediately abandon their current business models and adopt yours (otherwise they’ll be destroyed or left in the dust or on a sinking boat, whatever the phrase is today).

What you seem to not understand, indeed vilify instead, is any assessment of the risks involved. You don’t see any risks, no conceivable downside even possible. Just immediately adopt this model and it’ll be pina coladas and sunshine forever. Give away your music and sell the scarcities…what could go wrong?

We’ll ultimately see who’s right: your everybody do it now before your doomed, DOOMED!, or my let’s take some time to see if this thing works and works well over time before we jump in. But I don’t expect that answer to come soon.