4 ms·

That's bunk. It boils down to saying, "sure, it worked for Louis CK and Radiohead, and Cory Doctorow and Humble Bundle. It worked for Trent Reznor, OK Go, and

by phil 15y ago

That's bunk. It boils down to saying, "sure, it worked for Louis CK and Radiohead, and Cory Doctorow and Humble Bundle. It worked for Trent Reznor, OK Go, and pretty much everyone funded by Kickstarter... But it could never work for you." This stuff doesn't because it's sprinkled with magic experiment dust. It works because the authors are doing good work, they're able to build a fan base, and they're able to make the case to their fans that the way to keep getting new work is to buy it. There's no reason that won't scale out.

citricsquid 15y ago
The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? She would outsell all her other releases because "whoa DRM free this is incredible!"? I don't think so, her average fan (vs average fan of Louis CK or purchaser of Humble Bundle) do not give two fucks about whether or not music is DRM free or independent and would treat it just like DRM music is treated. The reason this was succesful for Louis CK is because it (for want of a better phrase) "went viral". People spread the existence of this around because he is being edgy, because he's doing something nobody else has the balls to do. If every artist released their creations independently, DRM free and without any "major label" backing this would have flown straight under the radar and been a resounding "meh" in sales. This sold because it "went viral". The story of what he was trying to do, the desire to prove people wrong. This had the absolute perfect marketing; better marketing than money can buy, but this isn't a group of buyers with endless supplies of money. If what he did became the standard it would no longer succeed like this did. How many years ago was it edgy to release an album on the internet? I wasn't on the internet back then so I can't provide any examples, but I'll put money on this happening and back then it being a guaranteed success because the people that wanted to prove that selling online could work bought it. I'm going to try and find one.
- nl 15y ago
  The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. That's exactly the point. I think you are trying to argue that people outside Loius CK's fanbase bought this because of the desire to prove people wrong. You might be correct in part, but that isn't the whole story. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? There are plenty of popular artists who have done similar things and had massive success. Lil' Wayne exclusively released (free) mix tapes between 2006 and 2008 which built his profile to the point that his next actual album sold more than a million copies in its first week of release, and gave him his first number 1.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    That's completely irrelevant. Imagine there is a time when releasing music/video or any other form of media is done independently without a label and without DRM. Will people who release stuff in this way be hailed heroes and make sales because of of how they're selling? of course not. That's what is happening here with Louis CK. If the standard for publication and sale of media was what he was doing here we wouldn't even be having this conversation because nobody would be talking about it. What Lil Wayne did has no relevance to my point.
    - BrandonM 15y ago
      I think you're missing the larger point. One option is to cater to your fans, to cultivate a large fan base, and then to offer them a convenient way to support you. Another option is to cater to the whims of a production company, promote your record with late show appearances, cut into your profits with advertising and middle-man salaries, and then hope that a large faceless audience buys enough DRM-encumbered media to clear your advance. The point is that it's a better experience all around to have that connection to your fans and to enjoy the fruits of your labor without having to compromise your ideals or give money to a bunch of people who added very little to the creative process. The world is a bit better when there is a direct connection between artists and their fans and when those fans care enough to want their favored artist to make a living and keep being able to focus on the craft.
- jfoutz 15y ago
  Femme Fatale, amazon mp3 is eleven dollars. I don't think pay what you want is going to be a viable model other than random stunts, but drm free is .. well.. seems to be here to stay for music. See also: iTunes Plus. People want drm free so much, they'll pay extra for it.
- phil 15y ago
  No doubt, if all music and video was released this way, a lot of it would fail. A lot of music released by major labels fails, too. Movies flop. There are no guarantees. So, I agree with you that Louis CK's marketing is fantastic. But it's not like only one person can market themselves this way, and there's not just a single audience that will pay for good stuff distributed in a civilized way. I think it's more like a giant overlapping Venn diagram of people. Kickstarter might be the best place to see how this stuff scales. Everyone on there is doing their own marketing, and a lot of projects are getting funded.
- roguecoder 15y ago
  Except this worked before the internet too. I have a ton of albums from working folk musicians in cardboard home-made sleeves, with great production values on the music and crap for polish so they'd cost $5. I found most of the bands I listen to from mixed CDs friends made for me. The Grateful Dead got rich off people stealing their music. The Sullivan Show, radio stations, MTV and clubs were letting people listen to music for free before Napster; together they made every big commercial artist in the last sixty years. The new thing the internet adds isn't "free music" or "sell things that are easily pirated for cheap". It's that big-names can do it and we can measure the results. Where are the glowing articles about how much extra money an artist made after adding DRM to their game, video or music? I don't think torrents wreaked the commercial market; I think they wreaked the bootleg industry (http://books.google.com/books?id=hUyMNhH_l-EC&lpg=PA236&ots=ioWBhqk9ON&dq=bootleg%20music%20industry%20100%20million&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hUyMNhH_l-EC&lpg=PA236&...). The people who says otherwise are self-interested and fail to offer the kind of concrete numbers that reluctant experimenter after reluctant experimenter produces from every creative industry. I will note that this is the only venue I saw this on; not from my friends or Facebook or Twitter or any of the other "viral" channels. It seems to me like it's already to the point where it is normal. It is working because this approach works, just like it always has.
- quinndupont 15y ago
  People feel invested in the purchase when someone like Louis CK comes out and speaks directly to his fans. We all get to know what the deal is, and how it works. It's the same feeling you get when you support a Kickstarter project, even if (to be cynical) many Kickstarter projects are just a way to sell units directly from producer to consumer.

by phil 15y ago

citricsquid 15y ago

The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? She would outsell all her other releases because "whoa DRM free this is incredible!"? I don't think so, her average fan (vs average fan of Louis CK or purchaser of Humble Bundle) do not give two fucks about whether or not music is DRM free or independent and would treat it just like DRM music is treated. The reason this was succesful for Louis CK is because it (for want of a better phrase) "went viral". People spread the existence of this around because he is being edgy, because he's doing something nobody else has the balls to do. If every artist released their creations independently, DRM free and without any "major label" backing this would have flown straight under the radar and been a resounding "meh" in sales. This sold because it "went viral". The story of what he was trying to do, the desire to prove people wrong. This had the absolute perfect marketing; better marketing than money can buy, but this isn't a group of buyers with endless supplies of money. If what he did became the standard it would no longer succeed like this did. How many years ago was it edgy to release an album on the internet? I wasn't on the internet back then so I can't provide any examples, but I'll put money on this happening and back then it being a guaranteed success because the people that wanted to prove that selling online could work bought it. I'm going to try and find one.

nl 15y ago
The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. That's exactly the point. I think you are trying to argue that people outside Loius CK's fanbase bought this because of the desire to prove people wrong. You might be correct in part, but that isn't the whole story. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? There are plenty of popular artists who have done similar things and had massive success. Lil' Wayne exclusively released (free) mix tapes between 2006 and 2008 which built his profile to the point that his next actual album sold more than a million copies in its first week of release, and gave him his first number 1.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- citricsquid 15y ago
  That's completely irrelevant. Imagine there is a time when releasing music/video or any other form of media is done independently without a label and without DRM. Will people who release stuff in this way be hailed heroes and make sales because of of how they're selling? of course not. That's what is happening here with Louis CK. If the standard for publication and sale of media was what he was doing here we wouldn't even be having this conversation because nobody would be talking about it. What Lil Wayne did has no relevance to my point.
  - BrandonM 15y ago
    I think you're missing the larger point. One option is to cater to your fans, to cultivate a large fan base, and then to offer them a convenient way to support you. Another option is to cater to the whims of a production company, promote your record with late show appearances, cut into your profits with advertising and middle-man salaries, and then hope that a large faceless audience buys enough DRM-encumbered media to clear your advance. The point is that it's a better experience all around to have that connection to your fans and to enjoy the fruits of your labor without having to compromise your ideals or give money to a bunch of people who added very little to the creative process. The world is a bit better when there is a direct connection between artists and their fans and when those fans care enough to want their favored artist to make a living and keep being able to focus on the craft.
jfoutz 15y ago
Femme Fatale, amazon mp3 is eleven dollars. I don't think pay what you want is going to be a viable model other than random stunts, but drm free is .. well.. seems to be here to stay for music. See also: iTunes Plus. People want drm free so much, they'll pay extra for it.
phil 15y ago
No doubt, if all music and video was released this way, a lot of it would fail. A lot of music released by major labels fails, too. Movies flop. There are no guarantees. So, I agree with you that Louis CK's marketing is fantastic. But it's not like only one person can market themselves this way, and there's not just a single audience that will pay for good stuff distributed in a civilized way. I think it's more like a giant overlapping Venn diagram of people. Kickstarter might be the best place to see how this stuff scales. Everyone on there is doing their own marketing, and a lot of projects are getting funded.
roguecoder 15y ago
Except this worked before the internet too. I have a ton of albums from working folk musicians in cardboard home-made sleeves, with great production values on the music and crap for polish so they'd cost $5. I found most of the bands I listen to from mixed CDs friends made for me. The Grateful Dead got rich off people stealing their music. The Sullivan Show, radio stations, MTV and clubs were letting people listen to music for free before Napster; together they made every big commercial artist in the last sixty years. The new thing the internet adds isn't "free music" or "sell things that are easily pirated for cheap". It's that big-names can do it and we can measure the results. Where are the glowing articles about how much extra money an artist made after adding DRM to their game, video or music? I don't think torrents wreaked the commercial market; I think they wreaked the bootleg industry (http://books.google.com/books?id=hUyMNhH_l-EC&lpg=PA236&ots=ioWBhqk9ON&dq=bootleg%20music%20industry%20100%20million&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hUyMNhH_l-EC&lpg=PA236&...). The people who says otherwise are self-interested and fail to offer the kind of concrete numbers that reluctant experimenter after reluctant experimenter produces from every creative industry. I will note that this is the only venue I saw this on; not from my friends or Facebook or Twitter or any of the other "viral" channels. It seems to me like it's already to the point where it is normal. It is working because this approach works, just like it always has.
quinndupont 15y ago
People feel invested in the purchase when someone like Louis CK comes out and speaks directly to his fans. We all get to know what the deal is, and how it works. It's the same feeling you get when you support a Kickstarter project, even if (to be cynical) many Kickstarter projects are just a way to sell units directly from producer to consumer.