6 ms·

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

by 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.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    He's suggesting that because Radiohead eventually took down the page, the experiment was a failure. He's conveniently ignoring the fact that their online opt-in pay system generated more revenue than their last published album before they dismantled it, demonstrating that demand/revenue in the new model exceeded the old. I do have a link to cite: http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444
amayne 15y ago
Maybe I don't get it. I'd like to see your data for point 1. Radiohead decided not to repeat their experiment. As far as an 'inordinate amount of attention', he got buzz because of the model and not the product (which people are happy with). Do you think the next person of similar stature will get similar attention? The second? The twentieth? That attention helped drive sales. What will it be without it? Sidenote: I make a comfortable living via online content. I know it can be done. The unanswered question is a breakout success like C.K.'s possible without big media help?
- dodedo 15y ago
  He was already the twentieth+ artist to do this. Many artists before him have been releasing content successfully and many more will continue to. As I said, it is interest in compelling content which generates buzz. Your assertion that it was "the model and not the product" is unfounded.
  - amayne 15y ago
    Name a comedian who hasn't had this level of big media exposure to capitalize on that's done half as well...

by dodedo 15y ago

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.
- dodedo 15y ago
  He's suggesting that because Radiohead eventually took down the page, the experiment was a failure. He's conveniently ignoring the fact that their online opt-in pay system generated more revenue than their last published album before they dismantled it, demonstrating that demand/revenue in the new model exceeded the old. I do have a link to cite: http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444 http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444

amayne 15y ago

Maybe I don't get it. I'd like to see your data for point 1. Radiohead decided not to repeat their experiment. As far as an 'inordinate amount of attention', he got buzz because of the model and not the product (which people are happy with). Do you think the next person of similar stature will get similar attention? The second? The twentieth? That attention helped drive sales. What will it be without it? Sidenote: I make a comfortable living via online content. I know it can be done. The unanswered question is a breakout success like C.K.'s possible without big media help?

dodedo 15y ago
He was already the twentieth+ artist to do this. Many artists before him have been releasing content successfully and many more will continue to. As I said, it is interest in compelling content which generates buzz. Your assertion that it was "the model and not the product" is unfounded.
- amayne 15y ago
  Name a comedian who hasn't had this level of big media exposure to capitalize on that's done half as well...