7 ms·

Honestly, I don't think the 'donate' model is a viable one. Sure you can make some money off of it, but that cannot be the norm. I think. Maybe (hopefully) I'm

Honestly, I don't think the 'donate' model is a viable one. Sure you can make some money off of it, but that cannot be the norm. I think. Maybe (hopefully) I'm wrong. Now don't get me wrong, I think that selling music in the internet age is a fundamentally broken model, so much more than the donate one. At a time where distributing media is as simple as one click, trying to make money off of distribution is just wrong. Take into account how widespread internet access is today, and do the most basic ecnomical analysis, take "Porter five force" for instance and you'll quickly realize how non-viable this model is. Labels who act as middle men between the artist and their audience might have been needed 20 years ago, but today, what are their added values? Now, if I do not believe that selling music is profitable, that doesn't mean that musicians cannot make money. Here's a simple business model for you: Make money off concerts and use your records as promotion units. Give your music away for free, hope for success, give a concert, make money. Labels want to scare you into thinking that their distribution model is the only guarantee that music/art will survive. Let's not forget that musicians existed and made money long, very long before technology allowed businessmen in suits to make money off of them.

_delirium 14y ago
In addition to concerts, merchandise is fairly successful for some artists. As the linked essay alludes to, a lot of music fans buy albums these days not for the music on them (which they may already have digitally), but for either collector-type reasons, or artwork-type reasons. So just selling them various kinds of artwork and collectibles can be a viable business model. I think the distribution of rewards will be a bit different than the traditional one, though, which may be good or bad. Casual listeners aren't great for monetizing via merchandize. You either need a good base of real fans, people who want to wear your band's shirt, have an album-cover print on their wall, own the special limited-edition whatever; or else you need to appeal to a genre/niche with a strong collectors' market (or both).
Navarr 14y ago
New business model: Kickstarter for songs.
- _delirium 14y ago
  It would be an interesting full-circle, since in a lot of ways Kickstarter is patterned off crowdfunding models that were pioneered in music in the early 2000s, like Einstürzende Neubauten's "supporters project" (2002).
- geirr 14y ago
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palmer-the-new-record-art-book-and-tour http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palm...
- djeikyb 14y ago
  What's wrong with using Kickstarter for songs? How would a specific service be better? It's worth noting that bands are already using Kickstarter.
BigTuna 14y ago
Louis CK begs to differ on the viability of a donate model.
- TylerE 14y ago
  Umm, he was SELLING. Nothing about his release was donation-relevant.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Actually it is relevant. He admitted right in his first message than anyone could go online and pirate the song, which is true. Buying the song effectively is a donation. (You could argue that pirating is illegal, but since Louis C. K. isn't going to come after you for downloading the performance, it's completely consequence-free.)
    - batiudrami 14y ago
      You can feasibly shoplift as well (not my thing, but I've looked and honestly it doesn't look difficult at many stores), but I don't think anyone is arguing that that you're 'donating' when you pay a store for your socks. Granted, copying isn't technically theft yada yada, but it sure as hell isn't a donation when you pay the content provider a set price for the content.
grey-area 14y ago
At a time where distributing media is as simple as one click, trying to make money off of distribution is just wrong. It may be practically difficult to enforce, but asking people to pay for the effort involved in creating content is not wrong. There's nothing wrong with asking for contributions for the effort involved in creating a song, and nothing wrong with respecting that. Some artists don't want to perform in concerts, but like recording and sharing their music. Personally I don't feel the donate model is strong enough to support music because given the choice most people won't donate, but if you tell people they are expected to pay some small amount, and make it easier than not paying, the majority will be happy to pay for content. The current system of big labels is not required for creating and selling content, and is not the only way to do it - for example artists can sell direct via the internet. There's never been a better time to sell content digitally.
- alainbryden 14y ago
  Trying to make money as a third party distributor is just wrong. I really hope that's what babarock meant. You're absolutely right that the there's nothing wrong to ask for money for the effort that went into making the music from each person that enjoys it.
  - alainbryden 14y ago
    After reading all the effort a site like http://bandcamp.com http://bandcamp.com goes to be an effective digital distributor of music, I retract this statement. There's certainly a lot of digital-distribution related expertise that's worth giving up a 10-15% sales cut for.
- tomp 14y ago
  Reminds me of the recent tipping thread... Tipping is not required, but is strongly encouraged by social norms. Maybe our society should develop something similar for art? Although the current crisis/capitalistic atmosphere is kinda counterproductive for such causes.
- laughinghan 14y ago
  > > At a time where distributing media is as simple as one click, trying to make money off of distribution is just wrong. > It may be practically difficult to enforce, but asking people to pay for the effort involved in creating content is not wrong. Parent not argue that paying people for the effort involved in creating content is wrong. Parent argued that demanding money for the negligible effort involved in distributing content is wrong. Parent went on to suggest ways to make money from creating content. In another comment, parent also pointed out that she or he, personally, makes plenty of money from creating software, without anyone attempting to make money off of its distribution. I personally am hopeful a similar sustainable business model may be found for music, some day.
tedunangst 14y ago
I find it really bizarre that in a forum which generally celebrates the ability to sell and profit from unlimited copies (c.f all the app store success stories), we have decided that such technology should not be available to others. If musicians want to make money, they're gonna have to do it sweating under the lights. Why is that? Would people here be as enthusiastic if the only way to get paid for writing an app was to sit down and type it out in front of each customer?
- pixelcort 14y ago
  A closer metaphor might be developers open sourcing their software and charging for consulting/hosting/customization services around it. Just like the special experience at a paid concert.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I really think music and app store games inhabit the same entertainment orbit. When someone builds a consulting business around their 99c iPhone game, well, I'd love to read about it. The consulting model works for some software, but not all. (obviously, there are people who disagree and think it can.) it seems like a mistake to take a model that works for some software and decide it will work for all music.
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      Wasn't there an article recently about how the app stores weren't actually a rational use of time for most developers, who were doing it for love, not because it was more lucrative than working for a bank (or consulting?). And the big money makers were actually heavily advertised, disposable, fad-driven, low-brow games aimed at tweenagers and housewives. And the companies pushing these hit games were sausage factories that treated their creatives like dirt? Sounds like the music business does have a lot in common with app stores.
      - tedunangst 14y ago
inflatablenerd 14y ago
I don't think selling is broken provided purchasing is easy. Like how iTunes does it. iTunes couldn't be more painless - search, click, password. It's true that the death of scarcity makes it hard to compete with hundreds of other sources offering it for free, but many people, myself included, find it worth the $15 AUD to get it legally without having to dick around with seeders, shitting ID3 tags, album artwork, and deleting original files after an iTunes import. What Alphabasic is doing is fantastic. I love Bandcamp. I wish everyone used it. It has lossless files, and all the music is streamable. Convenience is a big deal, it's why iTunes, and hotel room service, is popular and profitable.
- scott_s 14y ago
  To me, this is the main point. Filesharing is never going away. But legal selling of music is viable even in the presence of filesharing if the experience is easier and more pleasant than the alternative.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
> Here's a simple business model for you ...which may or may not work for some genres of music. Why do you imply that artists cannot sell content by themselves? Where is the connection between that particular business model and middlemen? Artists who make money off concerts might have a middleman as well. Or the other way around, music that is sold does not need a middleman (unless you count iTunes).
FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
> "Give your music away for free, hope for success, give a concert, make money." If it were always that simple, wouldn't everyone be doing it? You'll never see an unsigned band making its fortune off an arena tour, for one. It wouldn't be able to afford to organise it. A lot of bands that want to do it for a living will gig the usual local circuit until some label rep picks them up and funds an LP and bigger tour. People will like to think they're no longer relevant, and a response to the old-hat ways of the biggest labels (Sony, EMI, etc.) has been an upsurge in indie labels. Much like game and book publishers, they do serve a purpose in giving bands they like a break, thus allowing them to put out a record or two and gig on the wider circuit. Those bands might never have had the finances to do that originally. Hell, I was in one such struggling band a few years ago. Anyway, I don't think selling music is a broken model. But I do think that other ways to empower fresh, unsigned bands are necessary. Much like technology has empowered entrepreneurs and helped many a startup scene to flourish.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  A lot of bands that want to do it for a living will gig the usual local circuit until some label rep picks them up and funds an LP and bigger tour. Who owns the copyright to the LP in this scenario? I'm just wondering if there's much difference between giving your music away to fans and giving your music away to a label, except the fans won't use obscure accounting practices to make it seems like you owe them money.
johnchristopher 14y ago
He also suggests buying directly from the label, which give 90% of the benefits to the original musicians. That is the best of both worlds: easy to download, easy to pay for (when the label has the easy money transaction thingie going on). Not far away from a simple donate button. Maybe musicians should "sell" their album through kickstarter :)
stefs 14y ago
i believe the "donate" model works in certain instances, but it's nothing you can count (or depend) on; at least not from the beginning. "certain instances" might be very famous artists who use it as a marketing stunt to get a lot of free press. this might cease to work when the novelty wears off. most likely it doesn't work for unknown artists at all. but: counterexample! dwarf fortress! this unique game finances one dedicated full time developer since (felt) decades (though i'm not on top of developments in recent years). it works because it's a niche product with an incredibly dedicated fan base. and the developer puts them under pressure: he'll work on the game as long as he can live off the donations. as soon as people stop donating enough ...
parenthesis 14y ago
Sure, the marginal cost of music distribution is now basically zero. But producing every new recording (or film or TV programme) can cost a lot of money. The make-money-from-touring model is working very well for artists who already made a name for themselves under the old model. However, there are artists who can't or don't want to perform live. Arguably the Beatles' best work was done after they gave up touring and concentrated on recorded work. Must every electronic artist whose medium is `tape' be forced to contrive a live show or take up DJing if they want to eat?
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  Wait, electronic artists? The ones that threw drummers, violinists and piano tuners and all kinds of instrument makers on the historical scrap heap in favor of drum machines, synths, midi keyboards and samplers? And dispensed with producers and sound engineers and session guitarists in favour of a home "studio" that's basically a macbook pro? And now you tell me they don't even want to employ roadies and tour managers and support live music venues? My God, it's practically cultural genocide... ...or it's opened up a whole new world of musical opportunities that perhaps weren't obvious to those who would have fought to remain in the past if they could?
  - parenthesis 14y ago
    Yes there are such several implications to electronic music production. A whole different palette of sounds and techniques (musique concrete, acid house, detroit techno, …); a means of enabling independent artists to realise their musical visions without big budgets (drum machines and synths enabled underground artists to keep the disco vibe alive after it died commercially, the budgets for big string and horn sections having disappeared); or a means for cost-cutting and putting people out of work (much of current pop music fits into this category, I wish all those pop stars who profess to be so influenced by Michael Jackson, when they mean that they dance and have music videos as well as singing, would mean rather that they have great producers and arrangers and songwriters and session musicians and sound engineers create their recordings with them, of the calibre of Quincy Jones, Rod Temperton, Bruce Swedien, …).
  - 14y ago
beeneto 14y ago
I'm starting to wonder if the patronage model would work for modern music. A band could record a few songs as a sample of their work, maybe sell them on bandcamp or distribute under the donate model, then have a kickstarter for their next album. If enough people like their music and want to hear more of it, or if a few people _really_ like their music then the band will be paid and they will make their new album. If they don't gather enough fans then they are either unpopular or can't gather the exposure, both of which would also be problems under any other model, but this time are discovered before any money is spent/lent up front.

_delirium 14y ago

In addition to concerts, merchandise is fairly successful for some artists. As the linked essay alludes to, a lot of music fans buy albums these days not for the music on them (which they may already have digitally), but for either collector-type reasons, or artwork-type reasons. So just selling them various kinds of artwork and collectibles can be a viable business model. I think the distribution of rewards will be a bit different than the traditional one, though, which may be good or bad. Casual listeners aren't great for monetizing via merchandize. You either need a good base of real fans, people who want to wear your band's shirt, have an album-cover print on their wall, own the special limited-edition whatever; or else you need to appeal to a genre/niche with a strong collectors' market (or both).

Navarr 14y ago

New business model: Kickstarter for songs.

_delirium 14y ago
It would be an interesting full-circle, since in a lot of ways Kickstarter is patterned off crowdfunding models that were pioneered in music in the early 2000s, like Einstürzende Neubauten's "supporters project" (2002).
geirr 14y ago
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palmer-the-new-record-art-book-and-tour http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/amandapalmer/amanda-palm...
djeikyb 14y ago
What's wrong with using Kickstarter for songs? How would a specific service be better? It's worth noting that bands are already using Kickstarter.

BigTuna 14y ago

Louis CK begs to differ on the viability of a donate model.

TylerE 14y ago
Umm, he was SELLING. Nothing about his release was donation-relevant.
- sp332 14y ago
  Actually it is relevant. He admitted right in his first message than anyone could go online and pirate the song, which is true. Buying the song effectively is a donation. (You could argue that pirating is illegal, but since Louis C. K. isn't going to come after you for downloading the performance, it's completely consequence-free.)
  - batiudrami 14y ago
    You can feasibly shoplift as well (not my thing, but I've looked and honestly it doesn't look difficult at many stores), but I don't think anyone is arguing that that you're 'donating' when you pay a store for your socks. Granted, copying isn't technically theft yada yada, but it sure as hell isn't a donation when you pay the content provider a set price for the content.

grey-area 14y ago

At a time where distributing media is as simple as one click, trying to make money off of distribution is just wrong. It may be practically difficult to enforce, but asking people to pay for the effort involved in creating content is not wrong. There's nothing wrong with asking for contributions for the effort involved in creating a song, and nothing wrong with respecting that. Some artists don't want to perform in concerts, but like recording and sharing their music. Personally I don't feel the donate model is strong enough to support music because given the choice most people won't donate, but if you tell people they are expected to pay some small amount, and make it easier than not paying, the majority will be happy to pay for content. The current system of big labels is not required for creating and selling content, and is not the only way to do it - for example artists can sell direct via the internet. There's never been a better time to sell content digitally.

alainbryden 14y ago
Trying to make money as a third party distributor is just wrong. I really hope that's what babarock meant. You're absolutely right that the there's nothing wrong to ask for money for the effort that went into making the music from each person that enjoys it.
- alainbryden 14y ago
  After reading all the effort a site like http://bandcamp.com http://bandcamp.com goes to be an effective digital distributor of music, I retract this statement. There's certainly a lot of digital-distribution related expertise that's worth giving up a 10-15% sales cut for.
tomp 14y ago
Reminds me of the recent tipping thread... Tipping is not required, but is strongly encouraged by social norms. Maybe our society should develop something similar for art? Although the current crisis/capitalistic atmosphere is kinda counterproductive for such causes.
laughinghan 14y ago
> > At a time where distributing media is as simple as one click, trying to make money off of distribution is just wrong. > It may be practically difficult to enforce, but asking people to pay for the effort involved in creating content is not wrong. Parent not argue that paying people for the effort involved in creating content is wrong. Parent argued that demanding money for the negligible effort involved in distributing content is wrong. Parent went on to suggest ways to make money from creating content. In another comment, parent also pointed out that she or he, personally, makes plenty of money from creating software, without anyone attempting to make money off of its distribution. I personally am hopeful a similar sustainable business model may be found for music, some day.

tedunangst 14y ago

I find it really bizarre that in a forum which generally celebrates the ability to sell and profit from unlimited copies (c.f all the app store success stories), we have decided that such technology should not be available to others. If musicians want to make money, they're gonna have to do it sweating under the lights. Why is that? Would people here be as enthusiastic if the only way to get paid for writing an app was to sit down and type it out in front of each customer?

pixelcort 14y ago
A closer metaphor might be developers open sourcing their software and charging for consulting/hosting/customization services around it. Just like the special experience at a paid concert.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I really think music and app store games inhabit the same entertainment orbit. When someone builds a consulting business around their 99c iPhone game, well, I'd love to read about it. The consulting model works for some software, but not all. (obviously, there are people who disagree and think it can.) it seems like a mistake to take a model that works for some software and decide it will work for all music.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Wasn't there an article recently about how the app stores weren't actually a rational use of time for most developers, who were doing it for love, not because it was more lucrative than working for a bank (or consulting?). And the big money makers were actually heavily advertised, disposable, fad-driven, low-brow games aimed at tweenagers and housewives. And the companies pushing these hit games were sausage factories that treated their creatives like dirt? Sounds like the music business does have a lot in common with app stores.
    - tedunangst 14y ago

inflatablenerd 14y ago

I don't think selling is broken provided purchasing is easy. Like how iTunes does it. iTunes couldn't be more painless - search, click, password. It's true that the death of scarcity makes it hard to compete with hundreds of other sources offering it for free, but many people, myself included, find it worth the $15 AUD to get it legally without having to dick around with seeders, shitting ID3 tags, album artwork, and deleting original files after an iTunes import. What Alphabasic is doing is fantastic. I love Bandcamp. I wish everyone used it. It has lossless files, and all the music is streamable. Convenience is a big deal, it's why iTunes, and hotel room service, is popular and profitable.

scott_s 14y ago
To me, this is the main point. Filesharing is never going away. But legal selling of music is viable even in the presence of filesharing if the experience is easier and more pleasant than the alternative.

gurkendoktor 14y ago

> Here's a simple business model for you ...which may or may not work for some genres of music. Why do you imply that artists cannot sell content by themselves? Where is the connection between that particular business model and middlemen? Artists who make money off concerts might have a middleman as well. Or the other way around, music that is sold does not need a middleman (unless you count iTunes).

FuzzyDunlop 14y ago

> "Give your music away for free, hope for success, give a concert, make money." If it were always that simple, wouldn't everyone be doing it? You'll never see an unsigned band making its fortune off an arena tour, for one. It wouldn't be able to afford to organise it. A lot of bands that want to do it for a living will gig the usual local circuit until some label rep picks them up and funds an LP and bigger tour. People will like to think they're no longer relevant, and a response to the old-hat ways of the biggest labels (Sony, EMI, etc.) has been an upsurge in indie labels. Much like game and book publishers, they do serve a purpose in giving bands they like a break, thus allowing them to put out a record or two and gig on the wider circuit. Those bands might never have had the finances to do that originally. Hell, I was in one such struggling band a few years ago. Anyway, I don't think selling music is a broken model. But I do think that other ways to empower fresh, unsigned bands are necessary. Much like technology has empowered entrepreneurs and helped many a startup scene to flourish.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
A lot of bands that want to do it for a living will gig the usual local circuit until some label rep picks them up and funds an LP and bigger tour. Who owns the copyright to the LP in this scenario? I'm just wondering if there's much difference between giving your music away to fans and giving your music away to a label, except the fans won't use obscure accounting practices to make it seems like you owe them money.

johnchristopher 14y ago

He also suggests buying directly from the label, which give 90% of the benefits to the original musicians. That is the best of both worlds: easy to download, easy to pay for (when the label has the easy money transaction thingie going on). Not far away from a simple donate button. Maybe musicians should "sell" their album through kickstarter :)

stefs 14y ago

i believe the "donate" model works in certain instances, but it's nothing you can count (or depend) on; at least not from the beginning. "certain instances" might be very famous artists who use it as a marketing stunt to get a lot of free press. this might cease to work when the novelty wears off. most likely it doesn't work for unknown artists at all. but: counterexample! dwarf fortress! this unique game finances one dedicated full time developer since (felt) decades (though i'm not on top of developments in recent years). it works because it's a niche product with an incredibly dedicated fan base. and the developer puts them under pressure: he'll work on the game as long as he can live off the donations. as soon as people stop donating enough ...

parenthesis 14y ago

Sure, the marginal cost of music distribution is now basically zero. But producing every new recording (or film or TV programme) can cost a lot of money. The make-money-from-touring model is working very well for artists who already made a name for themselves under the old model. However, there are artists who can't or don't want to perform live. Arguably the Beatles' best work was done after they gave up touring and concentrated on recorded work. Must every electronic artist whose medium is `tape' be forced to contrive a live show or take up DJing if they want to eat?

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Wait, electronic artists? The ones that threw drummers, violinists and piano tuners and all kinds of instrument makers on the historical scrap heap in favor of drum machines, synths, midi keyboards and samplers? And dispensed with producers and sound engineers and session guitarists in favour of a home "studio" that's basically a macbook pro? And now you tell me they don't even want to employ roadies and tour managers and support live music venues? My God, it's practically cultural genocide... ...or it's opened up a whole new world of musical opportunities that perhaps weren't obvious to those who would have fought to remain in the past if they could?
- parenthesis 14y ago
  Yes there are such several implications to electronic music production. A whole different palette of sounds and techniques (musique concrete, acid house, detroit techno, …); a means of enabling independent artists to realise their musical visions without big budgets (drum machines and synths enabled underground artists to keep the disco vibe alive after it died commercially, the budgets for big string and horn sections having disappeared); or a means for cost-cutting and putting people out of work (much of current pop music fits into this category, I wish all those pop stars who profess to be so influenced by Michael Jackson, when they mean that they dance and have music videos as well as singing, would mean rather that they have great producers and arrangers and songwriters and session musicians and sound engineers create their recordings with them, of the calibre of Quincy Jones, Rod Temperton, Bruce Swedien, …).
- 14y ago

beeneto 14y ago

I'm starting to wonder if the patronage model would work for modern music. A band could record a few songs as a sample of their work, maybe sell them on bandcamp or distribute under the donate model, then have a kickstarter for their next album. If enough people like their music and want to hear more of it, or if a few people _really_ like their music then the band will be paid and they will make their new album. If they don't gather enough fans then they are either unpopular or can't gather the exposure, both of which would also be problems under any other model, but this time are discovered before any money is spent/lent up front.