A Detailed Look At How Prince Embraces New Music Distribution Strategies

from the keep-it-up dept

Last month, we wrote about how the musician Prince had been pissing off a bunch of music retailers in the UK by having a newspaper give away a free copy of his latest album with every issue. The New York Times has a great article looking at this, and giving a more detailed explanation of Prince's strategy for music distribution that supports a lot of what we talk about here. Basically, Prince produces a ton of new music and is constantly in the studio coming up with more music, but he then uses that music in a variety of ways to generate revenue from all different areas -- often recognizing that the music helps make a ton of other aspects of his business more valuable. He also seems to realize a key point in understanding the difference between music that hasn't yet been created (which is scarce) and music that has been created (which is abundant). As such, he has done a number of deals that getting someone to pay him upfront to create music (you can get people to pay for something that's scarce) but then giving that content away for free. In the latest case, the newspaper is paying for the album, because it's going to help get them a lot more attention for their newspaper. This is the same thing that's actually happening in China as well, where piracy is rampant, but there's plenty of new music -- because sponsors are willing to pay to have it created. Either way, Prince continues to provide evidence that nearly everything the recording industry insists must be true isn't actually true -- and he's doing quite well from the sound of things. The continued publicity is helping him sell out a ton of really expensive concert venues according to the article.

Filed Under: copyright, music, prince
Companies: riaa

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 24 Jul 2007 @ 6:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Mike: Your scarce vs. non-scarce argum

    Define "Non-scarce".

    Non-scarce is a definition in and of itself. Anything that has no scarcity to it. In other words, anything that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable.

    My take is it's only non-scarce because of copyright violations. What's yours?

    That doesn't make any sense. The legal situation and the FACTUAL point of whether or not something is scarce are apples and watermelons. They're totally separate. Whether or not something is scarce is a physical property. Whether or not something is legal is based on laws. One can be scarce and legal or scarce and illegal. Legality has no impact on real scarcity. It *can* be used to create some type of artificial scarcity, but that's quite different.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.