Secrets of the "New Music Industry"(eff.org)
eff.org
Secrets of the "New Music Industry"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/secrets-new-music-industry-old-music-industry
2 comments
Digital distribution shouldn't eliminate record labels; it should just revalue their services. Whereas before record labels were absolutely necessary for bands to make it big (hence the usurious contracts of the old days), now labels are (or are in the process of becoming) a merely helpful service.
My impression is that the iPhone App Store does a much better job of letting small developers make money than the iTunes music store does of letting small bands make money. I wonder what the core difference is?
I don't think small developers would be as successful on the app store had there been a record label equivalent in place. The app industry was virtually created with the app store. By the time iTunes came around, however, the music industry had already been operating in its current form for ~50 years.
If there was a Warner Music of app development, their products would muscle out indie developers just as record music does for indie music.
If there was a Warner Music of app development, their products would muscle out indie developers just as record music does for indie music.
I do not think a large amount of bands were promoted in the old days, just that the ones that did were made into gods by the talent pushers. I think you have a much better position these days, especially with all the free testing (samples and such) on the web sites.
Music has always been a social thing, so take advantage of that. Your fans should have a reason to create new fans. Cool shirts can be conversation starters which lead to iPod demos. Maybe you could find similar bands and cross-pollinate the fanbases. Maybe you could run a promotion for the holidays where a fan buys a bunch of CDs to use as gifts, and the buyer gets some sort of trinket. Just some ideas.
Music has always been a social thing, so take advantage of that. Your fans should have a reason to create new fans. Cool shirts can be conversation starters which lead to iPod demos. Maybe you could find similar bands and cross-pollinate the fanbases. Maybe you could run a promotion for the holidays where a fan buys a bunch of CDs to use as gifts, and the buyer gets some sort of trinket. Just some ideas.
It's extremely frustrating to actually interpret the information in this article and at its linked-to articles.
The basis of this article's claim is that "music purchases" are up by 50% since 2006. Except, even ignoring revenue, a "music purchase" nowadays is typically one song, not one album. In their own words, if an independent artist sells two songs on iTunes, they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD.
But selling two songs instead of one album would be a 100% increase in purchases, not a 50% increase!
The numbers they give neither support nor refute their point; I have no idea whose side I should believe. Neither, I suspect.
The basis of this article's claim is that "music purchases" are up by 50% since 2006. Except, even ignoring revenue, a "music purchase" nowadays is typically one song, not one album. In their own words, if an independent artist sells two songs on iTunes, they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD.
But selling two songs instead of one album would be a 100% increase in purchases, not a 50% increase!
The numbers they give neither support nor refute their point; I have no idea whose side I should believe. Neither, I suspect.
The two statistics you cite are independent.
Purchases are up 50%. period. the end.
Independent of that is the fact that when an artist sells two songs on Itunes they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD. period. the end.
The second fact does not refute first, it is orthogonal.
The point they're making is that purchases are shifting from albums to tracks (as you mention), and because of the higher revenue generated (for the artist) by selling tracks, artists are winning in this scenario and the record labels are losing money.
This point is clearly made in the first bullet of the EFF article.
The larger point isn't about artists at all, but that the old school music industry is waging (and winning) a war using copyright laws, and this is having disastrous effects on free speech. The example in the first paragraph was about the seizure of 82 domains, without any due process, and this was basically because the government enforced (without question) the claims of the music industry.
Imagine if it happened to you, your domain was seized because a company with some lawyers said it was infringing on their copyright. Think you'd be miffed?
Other countries are enacting 3-strikes laws (e.g. France), where if you were accused of copyright violation (downloading illegal mp3/mp4) 3 times (accused, not even convicted), then your IP is blocked, and you can no longer access the internet from that connection.
And the EFF is saying that the music industry is getting these kinds of legislation passed on the false premise that "piracy" is harming artists' livelihoods, when in fact margins on money from sales of music is increasing for artists.
Obviously you can disagree with their points, but the facts they've presented do not conflict.
Purchases are up 50%. period. the end.
Independent of that is the fact that when an artist sells two songs on Itunes they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD. period. the end.
The second fact does not refute first, it is orthogonal.
The point they're making is that purchases are shifting from albums to tracks (as you mention), and because of the higher revenue generated (for the artist) by selling tracks, artists are winning in this scenario and the record labels are losing money.
This point is clearly made in the first bullet of the EFF article.
The larger point isn't about artists at all, but that the old school music industry is waging (and winning) a war using copyright laws, and this is having disastrous effects on free speech. The example in the first paragraph was about the seizure of 82 domains, without any due process, and this was basically because the government enforced (without question) the claims of the music industry.
Imagine if it happened to you, your domain was seized because a company with some lawyers said it was infringing on their copyright. Think you'd be miffed?
Other countries are enacting 3-strikes laws (e.g. France), where if you were accused of copyright violation (downloading illegal mp3/mp4) 3 times (accused, not even convicted), then your IP is blocked, and you can no longer access the internet from that connection.
And the EFF is saying that the music industry is getting these kinds of legislation passed on the false premise that "piracy" is harming artists' livelihoods, when in fact margins on money from sales of music is increasing for artists.
Obviously you can disagree with their points, but the facts they've presented do not conflict.
But, our problem isn't making the highest profit from selling our music. The biggest problem is how to grow our fan base and effectively reach out to new listeners who would be interested in our sound, but haven't discovered us.
I feel like the "old music industry" had a way of solving the 2nd problem as it seems to be analogous to winning a popularity contest and straight up brain-washing young children into liking something by making it look or sound cool.
Anyone can create music and get it into the iTunes store these days. The margins are great, but you still need tons of people to like and buy your music to actually make a living out of it.