On Monday, I attended and participated in the always excellent twice yearly event, the SF Music Tech Summit
. As always, it was a fun time, full of interesting people. While smaller than some of the big music events, pound for pound, I tend to end up in a very high percentage of fascinating chats with people at SF Music Tech. The panel I was on was the first in the morning, and was officially called "meet the press," even though at least two of the five panelists (myself included) don't consider ourselves press. I didn't mean to stir up much controversy (never do), but I apparently got a few vocal folks in the audience riled up on a few points. The one that got some attention on Twitter, was the claim that live music was growing. A few folks started screaming and no one then let me back that up, but the numbers don't lie
. A lot of people came up to me afterwards with stories of success by focusing on live music, and I even heard from some folks who are involved in organizing live shows who say that the "complaints" about live shows tend to come from those who focus only on a subset of live venues that have struggled lately -- but that the overall live market is thriving (as the numbers show).
However, there was a second point that I later tried to make that again I never had a chance to follow through on, and wanted to do so here. People were asking about what business models are working for musicians, and I started listing out some examples, and a loud gentleman in the front row yelled out that the business model that had to be at the center was selling music. I responded with what I thought was an important question: "Why?" and again people started yelling. Of course, no one answered the question, and then the panel shifted gears to another topic.
But, the reaction from the crowd on that question cemented for me one of the biggest reasons why some in the industry have struggled to grasp new business models. As I discussed in my NARM presentation
a few months ago, selling music is just not a good business model
, but it doesn't mean there aren't good, very profitable, music business models
. It's just that selling music isn't a very good one. Instead, you need to learn to use the music (which still needs to be good, and is still the central reason why these other business models work) to sell something else -- something scarce, which can't easily be copied. That can be attention, access, time, creative ability, cool physical products, whatever. All of those things are made more valuable the more popular the music is, and you can build all sorts of powerful and immensely profitable businesses once you recognize that.
But if you still think that selling the music or making money directly from the music has to be at the "center" of any music business model, you're shutting yourself off to the largest opportunities out there. But, the thing is, music has always
been a product that makes something else more valuable. While there was some disagreement on the panel from someone about how record stores were profitable in the 70s, that's a case where the music was making the vinyl
(and later, plastic) more valuable. Today, it makes iPods more valuable. As the big box retailers know, it acts as a loss leader to bring people in to buy higher margin goods. Music is great at selling other, higher margin things. If you ignore that in the music business model, you're missing the big opportunity.
This isn't to downplay the importance of music, or say that the quality of music doesn't matter. It absolutely does. But the music is not the scarcity, and you don't make money off of selling something that's abundant. You use the abundance to figure out what other scarce goods it makes more valuable and you sell those
. So, people can complain and shout all they want, but it doesn't change the basic fact that until you recognize that selling music directly just isn't a very good business model, you're limiting your market tremendously.