4 ms·

Putting your music on streaming services is marketing, because yes, streaming is where the audience is. You say 7 people bought your album, which is great (cong

by mjr00 3y ago

Putting your music on streaming services is marketing, because yes, streaming is where the audience is. You say 7 people bought your album, which is great (congrats!), but how did they find out your album existed in the first place? As odd as it sounds, in music-as-a-business, the mentality needs to be that the music you're putting out is marketing for the actual product, which is the musician themselves. Because it's fans of the musician who do things like buy physical records, go to shows when they're on tour, or buy merchandise, which are the things that actually generate revenue.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> but how did they find out your album existed in the first place? No idea. Should I care? > As odd as it sounds, in music-as-a-business, the mentality needs to be that the music you're putting out is marketing for the actual product I fundamentally disagree with this.
- ixwt 3y ago
  > No idea. Should I care? If you actually want more sales you probably want to know a bit about where they came from. To know which efforts are bringing in customers. Basic marketing.
- IMTDb 3y ago
  > No idea. Should I care? It really depends if you want to go to a second meal with your wife or not. But if you are selling something, knowing who your customers are and how you can reach them to let them know about your product is the absolute basic you need to get right before thinking about promoting it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    My point was really that without any promotion (maybe a tweet?) I earned more from actually selling the album than I ever would via streaming it. Certainly if I wanted to sell more, I'd need to think about that sort of thing. But I'm already way out ahead of anyone in my position who had opted to rely on streaming for income.
    - RussianCow 3y ago
      The $50 you made doesn't prove anything. It's a small enough number to be statistically insignificant, and could easily have been a lucky fluke. You can't claim that your experience generalizes to higher income levels for people actually trying to make a living off music.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Alas, it's not easy to find actual statistics to describe the different income streams for the same artist on bandcamp vs. all other streaming services combined. Every musician I've spoken to who does both uniformly reports 10-1000x more income from bandcamp than from streaming. I could be talking to a too-small or unrepresentative group.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  > No idea. Should I care? This is a good question. Should you know how you made money? Do you need or want money? What even is a “sale” other than somebody giving you money for your music? “Should I know what led to the situation wherein people paid me money?” is a question bordering on mystical best left to the music philosophers and academics.
  - dahfizz 3y ago
    It's clearly a hobby for OP, not everything needs to be optimized for profit.
    - RussianCow 3y ago
      That part is fine. What's not fine is the OP extrapolating that experience to Streaming Is Bad™ simply because they made some small (insignificant) amount of money taking a different path.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        I'm no extrapolating. I'm saying two mostly unconnected things: 1. streaming is bad because musicians get paid a pittance for it. This remains true whether musicians could make more elsewhere or not. 2. there are other ways for musicians to get paid for their music (but many contemporary musicians do not bother to explore them, believing that streaming is the only answer).
        RussianCow 3y ago
        #2 was not clear to me from the OP. Thanks for clarifying, as I do agree with that point. With that said, my argument is that none of the options are mutually exclusive. You can have your music on Spotify and sell albums and do tours. Why rob yourself of a great marketing tool for bringing in new listeners?
        ixwt 3y ago
        One could argue that the pittance that musicians get paid for streams is really them getting paid for their content getting marketed for them. This leads to concerts, where they get paid more for performing their content. Yes, I agree with you that I would love to support more artists directly through things like Bandcamp or a similar platform rather than streaming platforms. I actually did look into doing it. Many of the artists I enjoy don't have any way for me to easily purchase their music directly. And I can only enjoy them through streaming.
digging 3y ago
> but how did they find out your album existed in the first place? I would assume they found it through Bandcamp's discovery services if the user is not putting their music on streaming services.
gabereiser 3y ago
>As odd as it sounds, in music-as-a-business, the mentality needs to be that the music you're putting out is marketing for the actual product, which is the musician themselves. It’s actually the other way around. The music is the product. The musicians are replaceable. Every “music-as-a-business” has shaken up lineups and replaced musicians, front men, dancers, roadies, publicists, managers, everyone.
- mjr00 3y ago
  In the context of a band with multiple members, the product is the band, which does occasionally have different members. But not the music the band creates, which is going to be available freely on the internet whether the band/musician/label wants it to be or not. Do you think record labels could replace Taylor Swift or Nicki Minaj with someone off the street and have them sing the same songs and be as successful? No, they could not, because all of the marketing and branding has surrounded those two individuals. Even the most amazing song in the world isn't really going to have value if you call it "UNKNOWN ARTIST - UNKNOWN TITLE".
  - gabereiser 3y ago
    Spotify has a huge library of covers by unknown artists. The band is the “company” at the execution level. The label is the private equity or accelerator/VC. The music is the product. It may be freely available, but it’s not free. It’s a business of land and expand before you see a dime so you need to establish the scale first. Taylor swift is an interesting choice since her whole music catalog was bought out from under her (she still owns the song but not the masters) and now she’s recording it all again. Just being Taylor swift isn’t enough, she needs her music, in order to be “Taylor Swift - The Band”. Yes, you can’t replace Taylor and still have her music. Just like you can’t replace Atari and still have Atari. There are companies that exist as an extension of the founder (cough X cough) but most don’t operate this way.
    - mjr00 3y ago
      What would make more money: Taylor Swift/Metallica/The Arctic Monkeys doing a concert that's entirely covers of other artists' songs, or me (a nobody) doing a concert that's a cover of Taylor Swift/Metallica/The Arctic Monkeys songs? If you answer that question correctly, you'll understand what I mean when I say the band and the brand/marketing behind it is the product, not the music.

by mjr00 3y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

> but how did they find out your album existed in the first place? No idea. Should I care? > As odd as it sounds, in music-as-a-business, the mentality needs to be that the music you're putting out is marketing for the actual product I fundamentally disagree with this.

ixwt 3y ago
> No idea. Should I care? If you actually want more sales you probably want to know a bit about where they came from. To know which efforts are bringing in customers. Basic marketing.
IMTDb 3y ago
> No idea. Should I care? It really depends if you want to go to a second meal with your wife or not. But if you are selling something, knowing who your customers are and how you can reach them to let them know about your product is the absolute basic you need to get right before thinking about promoting it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  My point was really that without any promotion (maybe a tweet?) I earned more from actually selling the album than I ever would via streaming it. Certainly if I wanted to sell more, I'd need to think about that sort of thing. But I'm already way out ahead of anyone in my position who had opted to rely on streaming for income.
  - RussianCow 3y ago
    The $50 you made doesn't prove anything. It's a small enough number to be statistically insignificant, and could easily have been a lucky fluke. You can't claim that your experience generalizes to higher income levels for people actually trying to make a living off music.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Alas, it's not easy to find actual statistics to describe the different income streams for the same artist on bandcamp vs. all other streaming services combined. Every musician I've spoken to who does both uniformly reports 10-1000x more income from bandcamp than from streaming. I could be talking to a too-small or unrepresentative group.
jrflowers 3y ago
> No idea. Should I care? This is a good question. Should you know how you made money? Do you need or want money? What even is a “sale” other than somebody giving you money for your music? “Should I know what led to the situation wherein people paid me money?” is a question bordering on mystical best left to the music philosophers and academics.
- dahfizz 3y ago
  It's clearly a hobby for OP, not everything needs to be optimized for profit.
  - RussianCow 3y ago
    That part is fine. What's not fine is the OP extrapolating that experience to Streaming Is Bad™ simply because they made some small (insignificant) amount of money taking a different path.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      I'm no extrapolating. I'm saying two mostly unconnected things: 1. streaming is bad because musicians get paid a pittance for it. This remains true whether musicians could make more elsewhere or not. 2. there are other ways for musicians to get paid for their music (but many contemporary musicians do not bother to explore them, believing that streaming is the only answer).
      - RussianCow 3y ago
        #2 was not clear to me from the OP. Thanks for clarifying, as I do agree with that point. With that said, my argument is that none of the options are mutually exclusive. You can have your music on Spotify and sell albums and do tours. Why rob yourself of a great marketing tool for bringing in new listeners?
      - ixwt 3y ago
        One could argue that the pittance that musicians get paid for streams is really them getting paid for their content getting marketed for them. This leads to concerts, where they get paid more for performing their content. Yes, I agree with you that I would love to support more artists directly through things like Bandcamp or a similar platform rather than streaming platforms. I actually did look into doing it. Many of the artists I enjoy don't have any way for me to easily purchase their music directly. And I can only enjoy them through streaming.

digging 3y ago

> but how did they find out your album existed in the first place? I would assume they found it through Bandcamp's discovery services if the user is not putting their music on streaming services.

gabereiser 3y ago

>As odd as it sounds, in music-as-a-business, the mentality needs to be that the music you're putting out is marketing for the actual product, which is the musician themselves. It’s actually the other way around. The music is the product. The musicians are replaceable. Every “music-as-a-business” has shaken up lineups and replaced musicians, front men, dancers, roadies, publicists, managers, everyone.

mjr00 3y ago
In the context of a band with multiple members, the product is the band, which does occasionally have different members. But not the music the band creates, which is going to be available freely on the internet whether the band/musician/label wants it to be or not. Do you think record labels could replace Taylor Swift or Nicki Minaj with someone off the street and have them sing the same songs and be as successful? No, they could not, because all of the marketing and branding has surrounded those two individuals. Even the most amazing song in the world isn't really going to have value if you call it "UNKNOWN ARTIST - UNKNOWN TITLE".
- gabereiser 3y ago
  Spotify has a huge library of covers by unknown artists. The band is the “company” at the execution level. The label is the private equity or accelerator/VC. The music is the product. It may be freely available, but it’s not free. It’s a business of land and expand before you see a dime so you need to establish the scale first. Taylor swift is an interesting choice since her whole music catalog was bought out from under her (she still owns the song but not the masters) and now she’s recording it all again. Just being Taylor swift isn’t enough, she needs her music, in order to be “Taylor Swift - The Band”. Yes, you can’t replace Taylor and still have her music. Just like you can’t replace Atari and still have Atari. There are companies that exist as an extension of the founder (cough X cough) but most don’t operate this way.
  - mjr00 3y ago
    What would make more money: Taylor Swift/Metallica/The Arctic Monkeys doing a concert that's entirely covers of other artists' songs, or me (a nobody) doing a concert that's a cover of Taylor Swift/Metallica/The Arctic Monkeys songs? If you answer that question correctly, you'll understand what I mean when I say the band and the brand/marketing behind it is the product, not the music.