Venting

[James Steele]

James, if you could point me to that book, I'd appreciate it. Anything with the instructions on how to get the music out there on iTunes.

I'll just xerox a copy and send it to you. JOKE!!!!!!!!!

I need to go find the link somewhere. I can't remember where I found it. Ahh... here it is:

http://www.higgs.com/publications/itunes-guide.html

[Shooshie]

Thanks! That's much appreciated.

You don't have the PDF, do you?


Shoosh

[blue]

Maybe you should study what Radiohead did in releasing their notorious "free" album, and see if you can impress upon your audience's conscience in some non-confrontational way that you would like for them to support your music, not just admire it. (Radiohead's average per-unit receipt was $6, much more than I anticipated.)

I'm afraid Radiohead's solution wouldn't be practical for a majority of artists. Few have the kind of exposure, band loyalty and dedicated listening base Radiohead has, and it certainly was as a result of the more traditional music business model they grow up on that they were even able to pull something off like this anyway.

Here's a telling quote from Thom Yorke on the release of In Rainbows.

• The only reason we could even get away with this, the only reason anyone even gives a sh*t, is the fact that we've gone through the whole mill of the business in the first place. It's not supposed to be a model for anything else. It was simply a response to a situation. We're out of contract. We have our own studio. We have this new server. What the hell else would we do? This was the obvious thing. But it only works for us because of where we are.

What I love about this is that they made more money cutting out the middle men and releasing the album for the price of a donation than they would have (and did) charging $20 a CD and releasing it the old fashioned way. Obviously, the traditional model is more about supporting the middle men than anyone else.

[Phil O]

Obviously, the traditional model is more about supporting the middle men than anyone else.

No surprise there!

Phil

[Shooshie]

Maybe you should study what Radiohead did in releasing their notorious "free" album, and see if you can impress upon your audience's conscience in some non-confrontational way that you would like for them to support your music, not just admire it. (Radiohead's average per-unit receipt was $6, much more than I anticipated.)

I'm afraid Radiohead's solution wouldn't be practical for a majority of artists. Few have the kind of exposure, band loyalty and dedicated listening base Radiohead has, and it certainly was as a result of the more traditional music business model they grow up on that they were even able to pull something off like this anyway.

Here's a telling quote from Thom Yorke on the release of In Rainbows.

• The only reason we could even get away with this, the only reason anyone even gives a sh*t, is the fact that we've gone through the whole mill of the business in the first place. It's not supposed to be a model for anything else. It was simply a response to a situation. We're out of contract. We have our own studio. We have this new server. What the hell else would we do? This was the obvious thing. But it only works for us because of where we are.

What I love about this is that they made more money cutting out the middle men and releasing the album for the price of a donation than they would have (and did) charging $20 a CD and releasing it the old fashioned way. Obviously, the traditional model is more about supporting the middle men than anyone else.

I think Thom Yorke is wrong about that. I think it IS a model for others, and that it DOES apply to anyone in the business -- just not in exactly the same way. First of all, among the thousands and thousands of artists who have sold records or CDs since the beginning of time, few stories are alike. Everyone has to find their own way. But what Radiohead did will influence everyone for a long time. Not that we will copy them, but that we will use their experience to enhance our own decisions and think out of the box.

Shooshie

[blue]

I think Thom Yorke is wrong about that. I think it IS a model for others, and that it DOES apply to anyone in the business -- just not in exactly the same way. First of all, among the thousands and thousands of artists who have sold records or CDs since the beginning of time, few stories are alike. Everyone has to find their own way. But what Radiohead did will influence everyone for a long time. Not that we will copy them, but that we will use their experience to enhance our own decisions and think out of the box.

Shooshie

Yea, what Radiohead did certainly gives us something to ponder for the future. I think what they did was brilliant, but I do agree with Thom that someone in their position stands to benefit more from offering up their music for "free" than someone who, say, relies primarily on business from 12-16 year old girls, or is just starting out and has a miniscule fan base. What I do think applies to all is the direct relationship they have forged with their fans through their website, and how they used that site to offer their music without the "help" of big business. That is inspiring and something we can all learn from, even if it is not necessarily new in this day of MySpace.

[James Steele]

I dunno. I think the only Reason it's practical for Radiohead is that they've already benefited from the promotional and marketing muscle of the major label system. I can tell you that a smaller, independent artist with a small fanbase could never do a something like that. Especially if it's an anonymous download. Of course all the people who would TELL you they paid something would add up to way more money than you'd actually collect.

I read the article and about the majors calling it the "free" album... and perhaps Radiohead made out better financially. Good for them... they can do it. But, on the other hand, if their action somehow contributes to the perception that downloaded music should be free ("C'mon dude! Radiohead gave THEIR album away!"), it may hurt rather than help musicians.

Perhaps the future will be selling T-shirts and various merchandise. The smart bands will be buying their own silkscreening machines... LOL!

[chrispick]

I dunno. I think the only Reason it's practical for Radiohead is that they've already benefited from the promotional and marketing muscle of the major label system.

True. And they know and admit that.

I can tell you that a smaller, independent artist with a small fanbase could never do a something like that. Especially if it's an anonymous download.

Nope.

I read the article and about the majors calling it the "free" album... and perhaps Radiohead made out better financially. Good for them... they can do it. But, on the other hand, if their action somehow contributes to the perception that downloaded music should be free ("C'mon dude! Radiohead gave THEIR album away!"), it may hurt rather than help musicians.

An interesting point.

Perhaps the future will be selling T-shirts and various merchandise. The smart bands will be buying their own silkscreening machines... LOL!

This is happening. Some preach it, in fact. I say skip the music-making part if you want sell shirts. Better business plan.

My infant theory is that music sales will require some aspect of greater concrete product exclusivity. Something akin to box sets or ancillary media like a special booklet, DVD or something.

Or...

Music remains the loss leader and you think of a way to market/sell the unique entity that created it (e.g., the artist). For example, an album or single might be distributed digitally as occurs now, but custom music-for-special-content or appearances get greater money push.

I also suspect the need for a label will give way for the need for a promotions rep. Product distribution is cheap and easy now. Getting your name out there -- that still takes some marketing muscle.

As it is now, the mass sale of music is a tough racket -- because the mass illegal distribution of that content can always undercut it.

[James Steele]

I think you called it Chris. I think what is necessary is some sort of "value added" enticement to get people to purchase the physical media. Something that is not easily reproduced and the T-Shirt is the perfect example. Really, I think independent artists, like anybody building a business, would be smart to do less profit-taking. Let's go with the assumption that an independent artist sells less units but can keep more of the profit. Taking part of that greater margin and returning it to the consumer may be the big advantage of an indy artist. For example, for a limited time with every CD they get a free T-Shirt, or a eCoupon good at the band's online store, or the first XXX who order it can have it signed, etc.

I know there are smart people who work for the majors, so I am hesitant to criticize too much about things I know little about. But when CDs were introduced we were told the manufacturing costs were higher than LPs and eventually the cost of CDs would come down. Well as they got cheaper to make, that never happened. Seems to me, that had the record labels had the foresight to take a little less profit and even if they didn't lower the CD prices, instead improve the value proposition of the CD product they were selling, they might have not suffered the sliding sales.

For example, they could have included some sort of merchandise in the packaging. Mini posters, stickers, guitar pics, cheap jewelry (like band logo pendant). It just has to be something that downloaders CAN'T get. Some of my better ideas I don't want to mention as I may use them. Also, what if it had become the norm to sell enhanced CD's that included song videos, band photos, band trivia game, etc.

In my usual rambling way, what I'm trying to say is that if you want someone to buy the legitimate product instead of a copy, the legitimate product has to offer something of greater perceived value than the copy. In an odd way, the Digital Performer manual (a subject we've seen beaten to death on this board) is such an example. If you want that manual, you need to buy the program. And in this context, it seems to make perfect sense that MOTU does NOT make a PDF! What's the value to buying a legit copy of DP if you can find both the app AND a PDF of the manual on a file sharing site? Seems like, if you think about it, the manual is probably far more effective an inducement to purchase than the serial number protection which little better than no protection at all.

Oh well... just more thoughts for the discussion. I'm going to go search the web for silkscreening machines now!

[James Steele]

My infant theory is that music sales will require some aspect of greater concrete product exclusivity. Something akin to box sets or ancillary media like a special booklet, DVD or something.

Just re-read your message and wanted to quote it. Anything that is easily reducible to ones and zeros and transmitted over the net will be commoditized and pirated. Again, some sort of tangible item(s) included with the work could be used to entice the consumer to buy the legitimate product.

Honestly, though does anybody know the legalities or technicalities of using merchandise items to entice buyers to buy a CD? Does this taint one's sales figures or make sales reported to SoundScan invalid? For example, at some point, if a band sells a CD for $10 but gives away a $8 worth of merch, they're pumping up sales "artificially" aren't they? Sort of like dumping product on the market, right?