4 ms·

The Louis C.K. Experiment is Flawed

13 points by amayne 15y ago

drumdance 15y ago
The author makes some good points, but it's a bit of a tautology. Louis CK is successful because he's really good at what he does, works really hard, and has been doing it for a long time. Yes, he gets mainstream media exposure. Because that's what happens when you're a successful entertainer. Obviously, not every comedian can do this overnight. But neither did Louis CK. He's been working at it for over twenty years, doing a lot of standup at clubs all over the country. Building his career brick by brick until one day he has enough star power to sell his stuff direct.
- amayne 15y ago
  I don't think it's a tautology. I mention several well-known online personalities that don't have big media exposure and they obviously don't have the same level of success. The formula for C.K. involved major television networks. My point is that I don't think you could do this without them.
baddox 15y ago
It's flawed only in the sense that it says nothing regarding the topic of artists rising to fame with this business model. Who ever said that was the point? This is like saying a clinical trial for a cancer treatment is flawed because it says nothing about seat belt safety.
- amayne 15y ago
  NY Times and Wired.
dodedo 15y ago
This guy doesn't get it. Here are his two main misunderstandings: 1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. Every single one, without even one exception. The author claims Louis got an "inordinate" amount of attention, but I'm not sure this is the case. I suspect the same level of buzz would have been generated had he somehow managed to produce a DVD at the $5 price point with identical content. 2) Popularity is derived from interesting media products. There's no mumbo-jumbo about old media/new media. If you've produced something interesting and compelling, people will want to talk about it. Attributing the acquisition of fame to "traditional media" is brainless. Old media is no different than so called new media -- they both carry stories of interest relative to the level of interest. And there are countless examples of folks who've generated their own buzz by producing a compelling product, as folks on HN should know better than anyone. You can buy a bit of publicity, but it's compelling, interesting and memorable content that creates a true monetizable spot in the public's consciousness. This is very repeatable and it is done daily.
- mjijackson 15y ago
  > 1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. Every single one, without even one exception. That's not true. Radiohead pulled the plug on their In Rainbows experiment after only 3 months in 2007. They decided to go the more traditional route instead. Why would they (an incredibly popular band) do something like that if sales were truly in proportion to their popularity?
  - dodedo 15y ago
    What you are claiming is not true. Here are some sources that refute your claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_placings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_pla... In October 2008, a report from Warner Chappell revealed that although most people paid nothing for the download, pre-release sales were more profitable than the total money from sales of Hail to the Thief. The report also stated that the discbox sold 100,000 copies.
    - amayne 15y ago
      And yet they haven't repeated this with subsequent releases. Why not? I really don't know. My guess is that they think this was a one-time gimmick and not a repeatable model. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
  - ddw 15y ago
    Do you have a link for this "pulled the plug" assertion? It's my understanding that Radiohead always intended to release the CD in stores all along because "some fans would not have the technological means to obtain the new material." according to Wikipedia. Yes, they do still believe in traditional distribution to a point (after giving it away for three months), but I think it's unfair to characterise it as a failure.
    - amayne 15y ago
      Failure is a subjective term. Radiohead released their next album at a fixed price with a rollout into traditional formats as well.
mjijackson 15y ago
Radiohead tried a similar experiment to Louis C.K.'s back in 2007 with their album In Rainbows. But after 3 months they decided that the online sales weren't working out and that they should pursue the more traditional avenue of selling CD's out of retail stores. Two similar stories with vastly different outcomes. I say that it's similar because both are well established acts in the entertainment industry, releasing their work unencumbered by DRM (or other encryption) via a website. As I see it, the main differences are (in very general terms): - Radiohead said that fans could pay whatever they wanted for the album, Louis C.K. charged $5 - Radiohead are a band, Louis C.K. is a comedian - Radiohead tried it in 2007, Louis C.K. in 2011 Of these 3, the most significant difference that I see is that Radiohead didn't set any price tag on their work while Louis C.K did. By some estimates more than half of the people who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying a penny for it. Louis C.K., on the other hand, charged $5 right up front. The price tag was so low that it was a pretty easy decision for most who bought it, but it was there nonetheless. I think that speaks volumes about setting customer's expectations appropriately, an area in which the software industry traditionally shoots itself in the foot. Ask your customers to pay something. If you have something of value, they will.
- dodedo 15y ago
  That's a nice story about Radiohead but it isn't true. In fact, Radiohead's online release of In Rainbows was a smashing success and generated more money in opt-in online sales than their entire previous album. Cite: http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_placings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_pla...
- amayne 15y ago
  Very good point. I hadn't followed up on the Radiohead experiment.
sgentle 15y ago
If this is a one-off attributable only to Louis's popularity, how do you explain the success of the various Indie Bundles? At least in some form, the low-cost no-middlemen wide-reach movement seems to be gaining steam on all fronts. Maybe it didn't work for In Rainbows, but Bandcamp seems to be going great guns.
- amayne 15y ago
  I think that's a great way to release things. Since so few people release actual numbers, it's hard to know what counts as a success. When they have big ones, like C.K. did, they tend to trumpet them loudly.

13 points by amayne 15y ago

The author makes some good points, but it's a bit of a tautology. Louis CK is successful because he's really good at what he does, works really hard, and has been doing it for a long time. Yes, he gets mainstream media exposure. Because that's what happens when you're a successful entertainer. Obviously, not every comedian can do this overnight. But neither did Louis CK. He's been working at it for over twenty years, doing a lot of standup at clubs all over the country. Building his career brick by brick until one day he has enough star power to sell his stuff direct.

amayne 15y ago
I don't think it's a tautology. I mention several well-known online personalities that don't have big media exposure and they obviously don't have the same level of success. The formula for C.K. involved major television networks. My point is that I don't think you could do this without them.

baddox 15y ago

It's flawed only in the sense that it says nothing regarding the topic of artists rising to fame with this business model. Who ever said that was the point? This is like saying a clinical trial for a cancer treatment is flawed because it says nothing about seat belt safety.

amayne 15y ago
NY Times and Wired.

dodedo 15y ago

This guy doesn't get it. Here are his two main misunderstandings: 1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. Every single one, without even one exception. The author claims Louis got an "inordinate" amount of attention, but I'm not sure this is the case. I suspect the same level of buzz would have been generated had he somehow managed to produce a DVD at the $5 price point with identical content. 2) Popularity is derived from interesting media products. There's no mumbo-jumbo about old media/new media. If you've produced something interesting and compelling, people will want to talk about it. Attributing the acquisition of fame to "traditional media" is brainless. Old media is no different than so called new media -- they both carry stories of interest relative to the level of interest. And there are countless examples of folks who've generated their own buzz by producing a compelling product, as folks on HN should know better than anyone. You can buy a bit of publicity, but it's compelling, interesting and memorable content that creates a true monetizable spot in the public's consciousness. This is very repeatable and it is done daily.

mjijackson 15y ago
> 1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. Every single one, without even one exception. That's not true. Radiohead pulled the plug on their In Rainbows experiment after only 3 months in 2007. They decided to go the more traditional route instead. Why would they (an incredibly popular band) do something like that if sales were truly in proportion to their popularity?
- dodedo 15y ago
  What you are claiming is not true. Here are some sources that refute your claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_placings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_pla... In October 2008, a report from Warner Chappell revealed that although most people paid nothing for the download, pre-release sales were more profitable than the total money from sales of Hail to the Thief. The report also stated that the discbox sold 100,000 copies.
  - amayne 15y ago
    And yet they haven't repeated this with subsequent releases. Why not? I really don't know. My guess is that they think this was a one-time gimmick and not a repeatable model. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
- ddw 15y ago
  Do you have a link for this "pulled the plug" assertion? It's my understanding that Radiohead always intended to release the CD in stores all along because "some fans would not have the technological means to obtain the new material." according to Wikipedia. Yes, they do still believe in traditional distribution to a point (after giving it away for three months), but I think it's unfair to characterise it as a failure.
  - amayne 15y ago
    Failure is a subjective term. Radiohead released their next album at a fixed price with a rollout into traditional formats as well.

mjijackson 15y ago

Radiohead tried a similar experiment to Louis C.K.'s back in 2007 with their album In Rainbows. But after 3 months they decided that the online sales weren't working out and that they should pursue the more traditional avenue of selling CD's out of retail stores. Two similar stories with vastly different outcomes. I say that it's similar because both are well established acts in the entertainment industry, releasing their work unencumbered by DRM (or other encryption) via a website. As I see it, the main differences are (in very general terms): - Radiohead said that fans could pay whatever they wanted for the album, Louis C.K. charged $5 - Radiohead are a band, Louis C.K. is a comedian - Radiohead tried it in 2007, Louis C.K. in 2011 Of these 3, the most significant difference that I see is that Radiohead didn't set any price tag on their work while Louis C.K did. By some estimates more than half of the people who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying a penny for it. Louis C.K., on the other hand, charged $5 right up front. The price tag was so low that it was a pretty easy decision for most who bought it, but it was there nonetheless. I think that speaks volumes about setting customer's expectations appropriately, an area in which the software industry traditionally shoots itself in the foot. Ask your customers to pay something. If you have something of value, they will.

dodedo 15y ago
That's a nice story about Radiohead but it isn't true. In fact, Radiohead's online release of In Rainbows was a smashing success and generated more money in opt-in online sales than their entire previous album. Cite: http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_placings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_pla...
amayne 15y ago
Very good point. I hadn't followed up on the Radiohead experiment.

sgentle 15y ago

If this is a one-off attributable only to Louis's popularity, how do you explain the success of the various Indie Bundles? At least in some form, the low-cost no-middlemen wide-reach movement seems to be gaining steam on all fronts. Maybe it didn't work for In Rainbows, but Bandcamp seems to be going great guns.

amayne 15y ago
I think that's a great way to release things. Since so few people release actual numbers, it's hard to know what counts as a success. When they have big ones, like C.K. did, they tend to trumpet them loudly.