Finding The Long Tail In Music

from the it's-out-there dept

In the past we've had an ongoing discussion with some folks on this site concerning whether or not it's now a better time to be a musician than before the internet became central to everything music-related. We've argued that today there are more options and more opportunities for bands than ever, and that's only a good thing. It doesn't mean that every band will be a success or can make a living. That's never going to be true (and has never been true, either). Many will still fail, but there are more tools and opportunities that if you learn to embrace them, you can absolutely do much better than you ever could under the old system -- which required massive backing to become successful. It was the golden lottery ticket story of musical stardom.

Last week, we wrote a post about an interview with Tommy Boy Entertainment boss, Tom Silverman, claiming that just 14 unsigned artists "broke the obscurity line," -- which was defined as sales of 10,000 albums. Amusingly, three days after this post, I met Silverman on an airplane over the Atlantic... and only realized it was him when he started talking to the guy seated next to me about my post not realizing who I was (small freaking world). We had a brief, but quite enjoyable conversation, and while I see his point, I'm still not convinced his conclusion is correct on the issue of breaking artists (his view of business models, however, seems right on). Meanwhile, in the comments to our post, Peter Wells from TuneCore disputed Tom's numbers. Since then, both have expanded on the discussion.

Tom provided more details on the number of totally independent success stories (decreasing the sum from 14 to 12 due to the fact that they had mischategorized 2 of the bands) over at the MusicianCoaching.com site. He then went on to claim that the long tail doesn't seem to be working for the music business:
Clearly the ease of making and distributing music does not benefit "breaking" music. Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both. I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true.
Certainly bold words, though they did not address my original criticism with the point -- which is that number of albums sold is a poor measure of "obscurity" (or non-obscurity, as the case may be). As I said then: "You don't have to sell albums to become well known, and just because you're well known, it doesn't mean you sell albums. It's not the best proxy for figuring this stuff out." This week, at Midem, musician Hal Ritson of The Young Punx put it much more succinctly: "Sales are not how you measure success any more. You figure out how to get as many people as possible to hear your music, and then you figure out if you're profitable." Also, I still think it's wrong to only count totally independent artists in this list, because many artists signed to labels (both indie and majors) may use new technology to help breakout (with or without massive support from their labels).

Either way, even beyond that, it looks like Silverman's numbers may be suspect. Peter Wells Jeff Price (from Tunecore) followed up Peter Wells' comment on our site with a super detailed post about the problems with Silverman's numbers -- which rely on Nielsen SoundScan data, which Wells Price notes is massively incomplete. He quickly names multiple artists who sold hundreds of thousands of tracks, which aren't measured by SoundScan, and suggests the real issue isn't that new artists can't break, but that the measuring system doesn't take into account how they break these days.

I have to say that Wells' Price's post is quite convincing. It's incredibly well-detailed and provides multiple examples of clearly successful (and hardly obscure) artists that aren't counted by Silverman's method. I still think that the points raised by Silverman about new business models in his original interview were dead on (and even he made the point that sometimes it made sense to release albums totally for free and use other ways of getting money -- which under his own definition would have made them impossible to "break out."). But it seems like there's an awful lot of evidence that our original assertion is still true: there are plenty of artists that are, in fact, breaking out thanks to new technologies -- and many are able to do so without a label. Whether or not it's "harder" to break out today due to increased competition may be another issue, but I'm not yet convinced this is a real problem.

Filed Under: breaking artists, data, long tail, music, peter wells, sales, soundscan, success, tom silverman
Companies: nielsen, tommy boy entertainment, tunecore


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), 27 Jan 2010 @ 6:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Whether or not you've used a plumber is irrelevant. Here are the points that I made, in little words:

    When people need plumbers, they look for places where plumbers advertise, and pick one. They don't wait until a plumber knocks on the door to advertise that they can fix your broken toilet. Sometimes they do pick one through word of mouth, but it's much more likely that they found them through the Internet or a telephone book. Not magical beams.

    A musician is a service provider, like a plumber. Putting the marketing onus entirely on musicians is like waiting for the plumber to knock on your door. The man who doesn't contact the plumber is going to have a broken toilet forever. The man who waits for magical music beams is going to have a limited music collection forever. Someone who is willing to wait obviously doesn't have a fixed toilet or music acquisition very high on their priority list. If it's not a priority for you, that's fine. But you can't blame the plumber or the musician for not showing up at your door.

    Yes, musicians do advertise alot. That's what I said. My point was that it's expensive to advertise, and you're asking them to advertise more, with less chance of return, and less profit when they do see a return. It doesn't make sense to spend $100 in advertising in hopes of making $50 in sales. You represent that lost $50. It's not a loss to skip you as a customer - it's a gain.

    In other words, you have an overinflated sense of your worth as a customer.

    My statement about your claim of willingness to spend more money stands. Your current collection of music is irrelevant. It might show your willingness to spend x amount on music, but it simply doesn't show that you'd be willing to spend several hundred dollars more than x each year.

    Now, you haven't answered half of what I've written, about the statistics that you keep spouting with no sources, about how you go from unable to uninterested, and without even fake numbers to back your claims that people don't use the Internet to find music and purchase music.

    In fact, you've spent most of your time here being deliberately obtuse, and pulling numbers out of the air. That tells me that you don't really care about finding music; you just wanted to 'win' a discussion. Well, you win, hon. You win as much time without good music as you care to spend. Hooray!

Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

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

Close

Email This

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