Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space

from the keep-on-keeping-on dept

While we keep presenting details of CwF+RtB working for various musicians, big, medium and small, some have complained that there needs to be more data to demonstrate that these kinds of business models can work. So, here we go. I briefly got to meet Shamal Ranasinghe from Topspin at Midem, but unfortunately wasn’t able to go to his presentation. Thankfully, he’s posted his slides along with some data from Topspin’s own artists, who are making these business models work:

Some of the key points they’ve found so far are that fans are paying greater than $20 on average per band on its platform (more than a CD costs) and with big name “branded artists” that number is more like $50. But.. but.. but don’t we keep hearing that no one wants to pay musicians any more? Apparently that’s not true.

Digging into some of the details, Topspin found that while many people do pay for digital downloads, the big chunk of revenue actually comes from physical scarce goods:

And while the number of folks who buy cheaper packages is much higher, the total revenue earned on higher priced packages is much, much higher. In fact, more than 50% of the revenue was earned on price points higher than $25. The under $10 sales, while making up more than 50% of the volume, account for less than 18% of the revenue:
Again, it becomes clear: if you offer things of value people have no problem paying — and often paying more than they did in the past. The claim that fans just want everything for free is pretty clearly untrue.

I won’t go through all the slides, but Shamal also spends a fair amount of time talking about converting fans into buyers, and (no surprise) suggests that it helps to have a real connection with the fans, as opposed to just putting stuff out and expecting people to just show up and buy. You can’t give it away and pray, but have to provide a real connection and real scarcities. But part of making that work is getting widespread distribution (Topspin uses a music playing widget) that helps bring people to the purchasing options, if they like the music. Rather than trying to hold back and hoard access to the music, sharing freely, and connecting it to reasons to buy helps bring in a lot of fans who are happy and willing to buy.

He also highlighted two case studies of amazing conversion rates. The David Byrne and Brian Eno album widget (the very first launched on Topspin) had a stunning 20% conversion rate of plays to purchases. Yes, one in five people who listened to the widget then purchased in the first few weeks of the campaign. That’s an astounding rate — and one I doubt many other bands would see, or sustain — but still an amazing data point. In their case, since the average transaction price was over $15, it meant that every play was worth about $3 in sales. And yet some still don’t believe that music online has promotional value that can lead to sales?

The second case study was with Fanfarlo, who sought to build up its email list — and found that for every 1,000 plays of the widget, 49 fans either purchased or signed up for the email list. The presentation compares that to paid advertising, which found that per 1,000 impressions, they ended up with 0.7 new email users. Once again: the music is a great promotional tool, much better than traditional advertising in actually driving a conversion.

And, taking it one step further, to highlight the massive power of word of mouth, Topspin found that (again with Fanfarlo), the “Shares to Sales” ratio was 1.1. Yes, this meant that for every one person who shared the musical widget, more than one person ended up buying something — though, admittedly, this number was likely skewed greatly by a $1 promo offer that ran for three weeks. But, either way, it shows that if you offer something that people want, at a good price, and you let people share (rather than punish them for sharing), great things can happen.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: topspin

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Some More Data On How CwF + RtB Is Working In The Music Space”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
60 Comments
The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Some of the key points they’ve found so far are that fans are paying greater than $20 on average per band on its platform (more than a CD costs) and with big name “branded artists” that number is more like $50. But.. but.. but don’t we keep hearing that no one wants to pay musicians any more? Apparently that’s not true.

I read this, and all I could think of was the number of people who just don’t buy at all. When your average is high, it is likely that you cut off much of the low end business.

It seems to run like I always say: Rather than collecting a few dollars from each fan because they want your music, you collect 10 times as much money from one out of ten fans who is stupid enough to pay over the value for it. The 10th guy is basically paying the free ride for the other 9. When the 10th guy figured it out, he too will stop paying, and then nobody is paying for the ride anymore.

Alan Gerow (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“one out of ten fans who is stupid enough to pay over the value for it”

You still obviously don’t understand the difference between “value” and “price”. “Value” is different from person to person. Your comments are value-less to me, yet to someone else they may hold value because they enjoy laughing at you.

Your one out of ten fans in your example obviously values the music more than the other nine.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Nope, I understand perfectly. The value is artificial, it is beyond the true value of the product, and they are paying a higher retail price than the true value of the goods. Effectively, they are playing supply / demand games to create a market price that is above the true value, pumped up only by mostly artificial scarcity. They could always print more t-shirts or allow 5 more fans to get back stage passes, whatever their scarce good may be. The scarcity is effectively artificial, shrinking supply in the face of constant demand pushing up the price. The value is a slippery concept, but another freaking t-shirt isn’t specifically valuable in and of itself.

Your one out of ten fans in your example obviously values the music more than the other nine.

nope, the other 9 love the music, they are just smart enough not to pay for it. They have already figured out that the value of the music is higher than what they are paying as the market price, which is zero.

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

No, wait… value is artificial because it’s man made, like a house. Some other attribute, like height, would be natural. Or is it natural only if it’s the height of a tree? A house has artificial height?

A tree has natural value? Or wait… does it have scarce value? Natural scarcity?

A rock has mineral value and is a mineral scarcity.

I think it’s all the same to TAM, all he keeps hearing in his head is “free bad!”

Chris (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Anonymous Coward and Anti-Mike,

I have enjoyed your banter here and would like to make one comment of fact. Price is literally a fact and value is literally an opinion, and in the instance in which it is used in your remarks, it appears you are both dancing with market value.

There is also “value to a specific user” which can be different from both price (a fact such as cost) and market value (opinion by a large segment of the market as a whole).

The great thing is that all of these numbers can be different. There are many more types of value but and price (or cost) can be greater, less than, or equal to market value as well as the many other types of value.

Just remember price is a fact and value is an opinion.

Cheers!

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nope, I understand perfectly.
You obviously don’t.
WHOOOOSSHHHHH was what happened to you with the point of this story.
These artists and the label are setting prices. Everybody will place their own subjective value on what is being sold.
If Price > Value Then No Buy
If Price less-than Value Then Buy
It is incredibly simple.
It is also why the record labels are not selling their plastic discs anymore.
Their Price is higher than most people Value them at.
Value and Price are not the same thing.
Incredibly simple. And it makes perfect logical sense.
Try to think about it for awhile before claiming you understand.

Leviathant (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Surely it’s a fool thinking he’s clever when he feels smart by not paying for music he likes.

Growing up in smalltown York, PA we had a small community of punk bands (and fans) that kept doing what it was doing because of catch phrases like “Support local talent.” With the advent of distribution on the internet, you don’t really need the ‘local’ part in there.

You get close enough insights into the music and the musicians, you get a better understanding of the process involved. I think it is extremely short-sighted to say that supporting artists you enjoy is stupid.

SureW (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“nope, the other 9 love the music, they are just smart enough not to pay for it. They have already figured out that the value of the music is higher than what they are paying as the market price, which is zero.”

So you’re an idiot if you buy the product and a thief if you don’t. Great consumer options in the music marketplace…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You clearly don’t understand a thing about basic microeconomics.

Everyone’s “value” is at a different point. A strawberry farmer will pay absolute no money for a basket of strawberries because he already has plenty. For him, strawberries have no value.

For you, you may be willing to pay $5.00 for those strawberries. Your neighbour down the block may be willing to pay up to $10.00. That rich guy with plenty of money to throw around, he may not mind paying $20.00.

Each and every person has their own set value point for products. A smart business man will try to cater to all ranges in order to maximize profits. That’s why marketplaces still barter and haggle – because it’s all about maximize the sale.

The only reason the mass market has ignored this is because individual haggling is completely inefficient, so instead they choose a price point that maximizes (supposedly) the possible sales. Sure, 30% of your market may be willing to pay double what your price is, but the other 70% would be humming and hawing if you knocked the dollar amounts up.

That’s what “RtB” is: Offering something at a wide range of price points to maximize sales. If 1 million people want free stuff, hey, here’s some free stuff. If 10 thousand want to shell out $10, hey, here’s a $10 offering. If 100 people want to pay $700 for a special edition package, then that’s there for them too.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

What you’re calling stupid is a person finding value in someone else’s work. Coming from you, I find that a tad hypocritical.

That’s the point – they value the work, but they aren’t paying for work, they are paying for some other thing that has supposed value (miniputt game, t-shirt, whatever) and not paying a penny for the actual work.

The value is in the music (as is the cost) but nobody is suppose to sell music anymore. They have to sell what most people don’t value or don’t want (stuff) in order to give the thing of true value to 10 out 10 fans (music) away for free.

You end up with 9 freeloaders and one guy paying for the rest of them to ride the bus.

person 10? he has no idea of the real value, and if he takes a moment to think, he will realize he is supporting 9 freeloaders. Then the value in his mind of the “scarce” thing goes down. At this point, there are enough 10th people to make this work, but like any shell game, sooner or later the marks get tired of being marks.

DocMenach (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, TAM. You really just love showing off how much you really just don’t get it.

They have to sell what most people don’t value or don’t want (stuff) in order to give the thing of true value to 10 out 10 fans (music) away for free.

Right there you show your complete ignorance. It’s not about selling things that people don’t want. That obviously would not work. It’s about finding things that the fans do want and will pay for. It’s difficult to set a price on music because because the marginal cost is $0. Due to this awesome fact of $0 marginal cost, you can use it to sell something (that people want) that has a non-zero marginal cost, and the music adds value to that.

Your talk of “freeloaders” shows how you miss the point. You may call them “freeloaders”, but a more appropriate term is “fans”. If you connect with fans (CwF), they will gladly give you their money.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Your talk of “freeloaders” shows how you miss the point. You may call them “freeloaders”, but a more appropriate term is “fans”. If you connect with fans (CwF), they will gladly give you their money.

That is what you are missing. Most of them don’t give anything. Remember the the Radiohead thing? Average was about 5 pounds paid, but more than half paid nothing. Half of the people were just freeloaders.

Calling them fans is like calling mugging “wealth redistribution”. It’s a glass half full view of people who took something for nothing, and have no intention of paying for anything else either.

When the people who are paying start to understand that most people got it for nothing, they will stop paying..

Due to this awesome fact of $0 marginal cost, you can use it to sell something (that people want) that has a non-zero marginal cost, and the music adds value to that.

Alas, marginal cost isn’t the only part of the per unit cost for music. Jill Sobule’s $75,000 record would need to sell 7500 copies at $10 each to break even. The marginal cost may be zero, but the actual cost per until (for 7500) is $10. You are making the marginal mistake.

DocMenach (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Bring it TAMmy!

That is what you are missing. Most of them don’t give anything. Remember the the Radiohead thing? Average was about 5 pounds paid, but more than half paid nothing. Half of the people were just freeloaders.

Yeah, but how many more downloads did they get compared to if they had been charging $10 each? They had over 1.2 million downloads of that album. It’s hard to predict, but it’s safe to say would have sold less if they were charging $10 each. But they also got alot more this way, because if they had done the traditional approach of putting the album out through a label, they would have likely only received around 25 cents per album.

Calling them fans is like calling mugging “wealth redistribution”. It’s a glass half full view of people who took something for nothing, and have no intention of paying for anything else either.

You make quite a leap there. What leads you to believe that they have no intention of paying for anything ever? I have seen many people who download music for free still fork out cash for concert tickets and band merchandise. Even if they don’t buy anything, they still help spread the music to people who will pay.

When the people who are paying start to understand that most people got it for nothing, they will stop paying.

Wrong again. When you offer something that they want and are willing to pay for, they will pay. The trick is let the people who want it for free have it, but give the ones who do pay something extra that they want.

Alas, marginal cost isn’t the only part of the per unit cost for music. Jill Sobule’s $75,000 record would need to sell 7500 copies at $10 each to break even. The marginal cost may be zero, but the actual cost per until (for 7500) is $10. You are making the marginal mistake.

7500 copies? Why would you choose such an arbitrarily low number? You must be aware that selling only 7500 copies of any album would make that album an unrivaled failure. It’s quite obvious that you chose that number out of the air simply to match the end number you were going for.

So since you are just pulling number out of the air then showing how much per unit that costs I can do the same:
75,000 copies = $1 per copy
100,000 copies = 75 cents per copy
300,000 copies = 25 cents per copy
1 million copies (platinum) = 7.5 cents per copy

See how the fact that you have 0 marginal costs encourages you to distribute it to as many people as possible? You don’t have to get $10 an album if you get it to 1 million people. And if that many people are hearing your music then plenty of people will buy whatever else you are selling.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

TAM what I find funny about you is that no matter what, no matter how much proof, no matter what the subject matter you take the opposite side, and no one can please your sorry ass.

We thank you for being here. We really do appreciate your commentary. Your playing devils advocate is great for TechDirt. You make people think through the reasons why copryright needs to be redone, why and how there are different ways make money off infinite goods.

Unintended consequences are something people never really get until way later.

Also this was not sarcasm … so no /Sarcasm tag reminder is needed asa reply

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s the point – they value the work, but they aren’t paying for work, they are paying for some other thing that has supposed value (miniputt game, t-shirt, whatever) and not paying a penny for the actual work.

Only employers buy work. Nobody has ever paid for work by buying music. They paid for music (whether it was on CD, MP3, whatever).

Richard Corsale (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“who is stupid enough to pay over the value for it”

You confuse value and cost. In the world of Software we know.. and have for sometime now, that The marginal production cost of software is zero. Zero is not the value of the software but it’s understood to be between bupkis and some arbitrary number that people will pay. See the disconnect? Let me put it another way. Microsoft created an internal semi-secret policy that states, that if Linux were to gain significant market share that Windows would be given away free. They would rather loose the 200 or whatever dollars than the market share, which translates to sales of Office, Visual studio (which is also earmarked to become a loss leader in the event of a price war) and all of its other VALUE added products and services. This is understood to be good business, because they get “it”. Customers are worth more than money. If you think about it another way, how much does it cost to acquire one customer? Right.. each customer that adopts early is a loss leader and margins improve over the long run. Now think about mindshare, it, on the other hand, is so much more expensive/illusive than customers, that it’s not been quantified to date. I look at Google when I think Mindshare, I look at MS when I think customers.

The new economy (I hate that phrase) will be for mindshar, not customers. The exact same rules hold for music. Now do see what hes saying? The fact that people still have to pay for Windows and office is because MS beat down the competition through marketing, lobbying and FUD. Wait… maybe you have been paying attention …. 🙂

NAMELESS.ONE says:

so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet

as in it costs me the following
4 megabit unlimited
2cents to download a cdr would cost them less as they can garner larger bandwith in blocks

so distribution is nearly zero
cost of stomped cdrs is nealry zero per unit too at round 5-10 cents

so whay would i pay more then 25cents which is a 500% market for any cdr of data that can be copied for no costs.

and when you consider mass internet markets…ugh.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet

It’s because 25 cents isn’t a 500% markup.

If it cost even $5000 to record the song, and they sell 1000 copies, the actual cost is $1.02 per copy (your price). So they would be losing 77 cents per song at 25 cents per.

to even get it down to break even, they would have to sell almost 22,000 copies at 25 cents.

You are making what I considering the marginal mistake.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet

Econ 101 discusses this thing called Average Cost. You take all your up front costs, and all your variable costs (marginal costs x units produced) and put that all together, and divide by the units produced. That give you an average cost per unit. If your marginal costs are low, increasing the number of units will obviously lower the average cost.

Taken to the techdirt extreme, if you produce a near infinite number of copies of something for nothing, the average cost will approach (but never reach) zero, unless your fixed up front costs were zero.

Now, when you know what your market demand is (1000 copies), and you have your up front costs ($5000), and your marginal costs are 2 cents (for bandwidth), your cost per unit is $1.02. Now, if the market only supports pennies per copy, you either need to heck of a lot more sales, or it isn’t worth doing the business to start with.

Y’see, if you look only at the marginal cost (2 cents) it is pretty easy to think that 10 cents is a good price… 5 times the money, wouldn’t we all like it in our stock portfolio. But once you start looking at average total cost per unit, you realize that you can’t do business at 10 cents and make a living. If that is all the market supports, you cannot come to market.

Taken now to the techdirt extreme, if you give away for free a near infinite number of copies, the average cost drops almost (but never completely) to zero. More importantly, no matter how you slice it, you are still out $5000.

If the bottom line doesn’t work, you can’t afford to be in that business.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 so what thre saying is the people they look at aren't smart yet

To be practical, TAM, why not just move those up front costs over to the advertising line on your ledger? What are you advertising, you might ask? Well, in the most simplistic sense, you’re advertising your talent, and getting more and more eyeballs on your talent is the first step in recouping your costs. The next step, of course, is providing potential buyers with a reason to buy…oh but we’ve already covered that above.

The bottom line stays the same, obviously, but changing how you think about those costs might help it make sense to you.

Anonymous Coward says:

First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"

Hmm. It looks like TrollinTime.org is available. Maybe someone should snag it so we can start setting plans and selling hats and T-Shirts for those who wish they could be there.

What do you think of this- “TrollinTime is the premier Trollin’ Troll Party on the interwebs: 100 miles from civilization. No phones, laptops, or blogging allowed. Those found blogging or doing things with a computer will be put on a pontoon with Mike’s wet and slightly kidnapped dog (don’t worry, Mike, she’ll be promptly put on a Virgin flight bound for SFO, and well fed at the end of the week.) This is the perfect chance for Mike to troll himself while we cast our own lines and do some real trolling. Plenty of beer, and BBQ will be provided. Special appearances by the Bahama Mamas, Nebraska Sextuplets, Crash Test Hotties, Alex Trebek, Sean Connery, and Maddox.”

I think this will work.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: First Annual Cwf -(RtB) Party "TrollinTime!"

Yes? Well, just remember, the goal is to not give anyone a reason to buy. Especially not Mike. Which is why the hats and t-shirts will be so valuable.

I need to hire a designer to create a series of T-shirts that will be as epic as “Three Wolf Moon”, but perhaps it will be called “The Dog that CwF” Maybe it will be a t-shirt of a dog wearing a t-shirt. Hmm.

Anonymous Coward says:

all the whores claim to make a lot of money as well (but not nearly with such ppt skills), but no one ever reveals the NET on these methods, just percentages that are only relative to themselves. They could have sold 1 item at $25 and 1 item at $5 and claim that 5x the amount of dollars and 50% of the purchases were on the $25 and above price point. The numbers dont mean a dammmmmmnnnn thing, unless you have the actual numbers.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: The Music Industry

Thats basic economics, Supply and demand. People are not clamoring to buy digital music in the first place. You increase the price, you will decrease the demand.

CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. “…he also suggested that in hindsight, perhaps it wasn’t a great idea to raise prices 30 percent during a recession”

Even if there wasnt a recession it would have caused the same decline in sales.

Henry Emrich (profile) says:

The most ironic thing.....

…about the miracle that is TAM (and other such trolls), is their assumption that Masnick is actually an enemy of their corporate overlords, because he neglects to participate in their particular pipe-dream.

The thing is, he’s actually *much* more charitable and sympathetic to your corporate overlords, even though he understands that their actions are completely and utterly ridiculous, counter-productive, and ultimately suicidal.

Evidence?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/004218.shtml

“While I have no clue about their feelings towards me, I should clarify my feelings towards them — which I would hope is clear from these posts. I do not hate the recording industry or the movie industry. Quite the opposite. I’m a big fan of both music and movies. The point of this series is not to slam the organizations making these moves, but to help them. I hope they succeed, because it would be a lot easier for everyone involved. However, I do believe that their current strategies of alienating their best customers, relying on government protection, and pretending this is some sort of epic battle between good and evil aren’t just doomed to fail, they’re actively making things worse for themselves. What I write shouldn’t be viewed as hatred for these organizations, but suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market that doesn’t require everyone to hate them. I’m quite confident that the market for entertainment is only going to grow to tremendous levels going forward — and I believe these organizations have every opportunity to capture quite a bit of it (though, they’ve been throwing that chance away every day). It’s just a matter of recognizing the long-term strategic errors of their ways.”

Ultimately, This is why TAM and others of that ilk are so fascinating — rather than admit the (blindingly self-evident) fact that their corporate overlords “Strategy” as regards the Internet, digital culture, etc. has completely backfired, and *trying something different*, they persist in apologizing for/excusing/justifying the aforementioned idiocy, and, in so doing, hasten their corporate overlords’ complete and utter ruination and collapse — ALL THE WHILE, making themselves look like pretentious, uninformed, arrogant little shits in the process.

They persist in frantically attacking probably the *only* person on this entire planet who BOTH understands what their corporate overlords are doing, AND wants to help them survive.

That’s what’s fascinating to me. Beyond all the (willful) ignorance and corporate lap-doggery, TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball’s chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.

Utterly astounding.

The Anti-Mike (profile) says:

Re: The most ironic thing.....

their corporate overlords

Once again, I have no corporate overlords, I don’t work in the music or movie industry.

Mike often says nice thing about people, yet he characterizes the same people as buggy whip makers, people with their heads in the sand, and worse. Effecively, he looks at them the same sadness one might hold for the “slow kid” who never does quite manage to learn how to tie his shoes or write his name.

particularly quotes like this:

“suggestions on how they could create for themselves a much bigger and more successful market “

His first suggestion is that they should all go away, and take copyright and patents with them. That sounds like a good way to grow their businesses.

TAM and other trolls are hell-bent on discrediting the very person/business-model that stands even a snowball’s chance in hell of saving them from the slag-heap of obsolescence and/or total ignominy.

You pretty much so the same thing, making nice noises and then calling them idiots. You might understand that they don’t want advice from people who’s first idea is to take them out behind the shed and put them out of their misery, right?

Mark Ryder (profile) says:

AAAARRRRRR!!!

suits suits suits suits.. What a load of utter cr*P

Where is the music gone? Is all this rubbish sales man talk? Music please and FU&K all the other income revenue streams based of a year per dumb with slice of a pie chat! ARRR..

Get real music is the value and music is the experience the rest is for sales men and number crunchers!!

Support the artist = buy the music!! End of

Go to a fashion designer for a t-shirt or coffee mug that’s not music that’s something totally not music

DocMenach (profile) says:

No response from TAM makes me a sad panda

Ahh Tammy, you seem so flustered. You clearly try to miss the point on purpose, you pull bogus numbers out of the air to “prove” your point (7500 copies? Jill Sobule will probably distribute at least a million copies), and you view fans as freeloaders and muggers.

My favorite line you wrote is probably this gem:
Music and movies are only “non scarce” because people are pirating them. Otherwise, they would be as scarce as always. It is pretty insane to base a business model on widespread piracy, no?

This line shows how you really don’t understand what “scarce” vs “non-scarce” means. Scarcity is an inherent property. Anything that can be digitally encoded (and therefore easily copied for practically no marginal cost) is by definition a non-scarce good. You can’t take a non-scarce good and make it scarce. Though you can use that non-scarce good to sell scarce goods. The scarce and non-scarce good compliment each other to give more value to the customer, and encourages them to buy. Distributing that non-scarce good widely gives you much more opportunity to sell scarce goods.

It’s not about basing your business model on widespread piracy, it’s about taking advantage of the fact that digital distribution allows for easy and cheap distribution on a level that was unheard of before. Until you can understand this very basic point, you will continue to fail at this.

Ex local music promoter geek says:

My opinion on music, art and making a living

The marketing for music creates desire. Desire for an artist, an emotion, to belong… many different levels. Ever seen those ads saying ‘The must have albumn’ toting performers as ‘The greatest artist of our time’, it’s all building desire. What fulfills desire? Satisfaction.

And the satisfaction is what people are going to pay for. Years ago, the only satisfaction you could get was purchasing a disk. Now that particular satisfaction can be acquired immediately via a digital download, IMO most people will choose instant satisfaction. People with pots of money will pay for the convenience of getting that download instantly and easily, not so wealthy people will prefer to spend the time to search for something free.

But the key is the satisfaction. The greater the desire for the music or artist, the more people will be willing to spend money on satisfying that desire.

If the marketing idolizes the performer, then I’d probably want personal contact. If the artist purveys an image, maybe I’ll desire a t-shirt or poster to associate myself with that image, or more likely, want their image for myself (hair cuts, makeup, clothing etc.). If the artist is reasonable and approachable, I’ll probably want to satisfy my desire to help support them in continuing to make more music.

And there’s satisfaction in obtaining scarcities from artists. There’s satisfaction in personal contact with somebody you idolize. Satisfaction in seeing a unique live show. Satisfaction in supporting a proficient artist with their life’s work.

IMHO music is about expressing and fulfilling needs. That’s the realm of the artist. The internet is killing music as an industry and re-birthing music as an art. And thankfully, it’s never too late.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: My opinion on music, art and making a living

If the marketing idolizes the performer, then I’d probably want personal contact. If the artist purveys an image, maybe I’ll desire a t-shirt or poster to associate myself with that image, or more likely, want their image for myself (hair cuts, makeup, clothing etc.). If the artist is reasonable and approachable, I’ll probably want to satisfy my desire to help support them in continuing to make more music.

I’ve been speculating that perhaps in this day and age, when technology and the Internet make music more accessible for everyone, if the “rock star as idol” might be changing.

Here’s something I just posted yesterday.

Participatory Art Is Revolutionary

Ian says:

I didn’t read every comment, but I’m pretty sure that no-one mentioned that if you build a massive following by allowing your music to be distributed for free, many more than the 1 in 10 who pay for other tangible goods will come to see you play live.

Pretty Lights anyone? Massive free downloads = touring the world to large sold out theatres.

That is simple economics and nobody can disagree with the facts.

In the old model he would have struggled to sell a few club records and get anywhere. Now, he is known to all the people he should be reaching and is making a great living – far more than he could have done under a traditional old school deal.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...