Louis C.K. "I've never seen a check from a [TV] comedy special"(npr.org)
npr.org
Louis C.K. "I've never seen a check from a [TV] comedy special"
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/13/143581710/louis-c-k-reflects-on-louie-loss-love-and-life?ft=1&f=1008
139 comments
re: DRM, I wouldn't call it a factual error. The article didn't imply that it's not possible, it just said it was harder. And I'd argue stripping DRM (no matter how easy it is) is, is in fact harder than not bothering.
re: Popularity, I thought so too, until I had to wait on a long, long line to see him in Caroline's over two years ago. I was lucky enough to snag tickets to the Beacon theater show (that he's selling now) and it sold out in minutes. He also did 3 consecutive shows in Brooklyn, NY, tickets to which were announced the day of practically and not a single person I know got tickets (and many, many tried). I heard lines wrapping the block more than once. I've never seen this kind of commitment to a comedian.
re: Popularity, I thought so too, until I had to wait on a long, long line to see him in Caroline's over two years ago. I was lucky enough to snag tickets to the Beacon theater show (that he's selling now) and it sold out in minutes. He also did 3 consecutive shows in Brooklyn, NY, tickets to which were announced the day of practically and not a single person I know got tickets (and many, many tried). I heard lines wrapping the block more than once. I've never seen this kind of commitment to a comedian.
>And I'd argue stripping DRM (no matter how easy it is) is, is in fact harder than not bothering.
But it's never, ever, necessary, not when gazillions of scene groups strip DRM from a work and upload it as soon as it hits the market, if not before; sometimes they just get hold of the studio version. It might make some obscure video games harder to pirate, since it's much harder to strip DRM from code than from data, but video? No way.
DRM makes it harder for me to put legitimate content on a device I own, but it makes it no harder to pirate that same content.
But it's never, ever, necessary, not when gazillions of scene groups strip DRM from a work and upload it as soon as it hits the market, if not before; sometimes they just get hold of the studio version. It might make some obscure video games harder to pirate, since it's much harder to strip DRM from code than from data, but video? No way.
DRM makes it harder for me to put legitimate content on a device I own, but it makes it no harder to pirate that same content.
[deleted]
You may be correct that DRM makes it "no harder to pirate that same content"...but it DOES make it harder for people to transfer files to each other through email/CDs/USB keys.
To you, it may seem trivial to load up a torrent program and spend some of the day browsing the trackers, but this is not at all trivial to the average person.
Think about it...DRM can be circumvented on iTunes music by burning it to a CD, giving someone the CD, and then ripping that CD. Or just burning to CD and ripping to your own computer and THEN distributing the files. Yet iTunes has been a huge success because people either do not realize this or because the few extra steps is not worth the effort.
Small extra steps make a huge difference between what is theoretically doable and what people actually tolerate doing.
To you, it may seem trivial to load up a torrent program and spend some of the day browsing the trackers, but this is not at all trivial to the average person.
Think about it...DRM can be circumvented on iTunes music by burning it to a CD, giving someone the CD, and then ripping that CD. Or just burning to CD and ripping to your own computer and THEN distributing the files. Yet iTunes has been a huge success because people either do not realize this or because the few extra steps is not worth the effort.
Small extra steps make a huge difference between what is theoretically doable and what people actually tolerate doing.
iTunes music hasn't been DRMed in about two and a half years now, I think. And honestly, things have moved quickly. When iTunes music was still DRMed, I think we were still in the process of transitioning away from CDs as a playback medium.
That said, I think the biggest reason iTunes has succeeded is because it's easier to buy the damn song than it is to go hunt it down. I suppose if someone emailed you the song file directly that'd be easier, but only marginally. When it's equally easy/easier to do “the right thing”, I think most people tends toward doing “the right thing”. The problem with DRM is it usually actually makes it harder to do “the right thing”. Oops.
That said, I think the biggest reason iTunes has succeeded is because it's easier to buy the damn song than it is to go hunt it down. I suppose if someone emailed you the song file directly that'd be easier, but only marginally. When it's equally easy/easier to do “the right thing”, I think most people tends toward doing “the right thing”. The problem with DRM is it usually actually makes it harder to do “the right thing”. Oops.
> Yet iTunes has been a huge success because people either do not realize this or because the few extra steps is not worth the effort.
Please be careful attributing the success of iTunes to DRM.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay:
- Steve Jobs said that Apple didn't want to use DRM but was forced to by the music labels, who wouldn't provide the music w/o DRM.
- Apple announced in Jan 2009 iTunes was moving to DRM-free music.
Please be careful attributing the success of iTunes to DRM.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay:
- Steve Jobs said that Apple didn't want to use DRM but was forced to by the music labels, who wouldn't provide the music w/o DRM.
- Apple announced in Jan 2009 iTunes was moving to DRM-free music.
Ah, you are correct. It is more correct to say that iTunes was a success despite DRM.
However, I did not mean to assert that DRM was iTunes's key to success, even if Jobs's actually wanted DRM. I'm only saying that significantly fewer people would pay 99 cents a song if sharing music was as easy as buying it off of a centralized source and sending it around by email.
DRM is a pain in the ass for all the honest people. But its role in making sharing less-than-frictionless for the average user probably pushed a good number of people to just sign up for an iTunes account to pay the measly $.99
However, I did not mean to assert that DRM was iTunes's key to success, even if Jobs's actually wanted DRM. I'm only saying that significantly fewer people would pay 99 cents a song if sharing music was as easy as buying it off of a centralized source and sending it around by email.
DRM is a pain in the ass for all the honest people. But its role in making sharing less-than-frictionless for the average user probably pushed a good number of people to just sign up for an iTunes account to pay the measly $.99
For you, maybe. I've found AAC being proprietary is enough to make people buy iPods. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can convert it to MP3 within that piece of shit iTunes.
"One factual error that the article makes is that DRM'd content is harder to pirate. That is simply not the case; every piece of content ever released is easily pirate-able. The only thing that DRM does is hurt legitimate users."
That's hardly a "factual error". I can email an mp3 to my friend and have them play it. I can't do the same with a DRM'd song. Is that not harder? Instead I have to make extra efforts to strip the DRM or find a non-DRM'd version elsewhere. For non-technical users, it might actually be "hard" to pirate DRM'd content.
While the article could/should have taken care to make the subtle point that you allude to, I find it's phrasing less disingenuous than yours.
That's hardly a "factual error". I can email an mp3 to my friend and have them play it. I can't do the same with a DRM'd song. Is that not harder? Instead I have to make extra efforts to strip the DRM or find a non-DRM'd version elsewhere. For non-technical users, it might actually be "hard" to pirate DRM'd content.
While the article could/should have taken care to make the subtle point that you allude to, I find it's phrasing less disingenuous than yours.
I think the point the parent was making is that all it takes it one person stripping the DRM and the content is on the Internet (torrents, usenet, private ftps, etc). It might not be easy to share person-to-person (for non-technical users), but if one just searches the Internet the content would be there somewhere.
Non-technical users are almost every single user in the world. So, if DRM prevents just those people from being able to simply email a video to a friend, then it actually is preventing most "pirating".
It prevents person-to-person sharing for non-technical users of the original content. The real question is: How hard is it for a non-technical user to find and download a pirated version from the Internet?
It's the difference between:
It's the difference between:
Hey! This track is awesome lemme email it to you.
Hey! This track is awesome. Google for a pirated version
of it!Almost everyone on the internet doesn't know what a torrent is, and would stop at trying to email it to a friend. The larger share of the market IS being prevented from sharing by DRM.
They don't have to know what a torrent is to search for "How do I watch season 4 episode 2 of MY_FAVORITE_SHOW for free?" and eventually find a torrent or working video stream.
>That's hardly a "factual error". I can email an mp3 to my friend and have them play it. I can't do the same with a DRM'd song. Is that not harder? Instead I have to make extra efforts to strip the DRM or find a non-DRM'd version elsewhere. For non-technical users, it might actually be "hard" to pirate DRM'd content.
If by piracy you mean the kind of content sharing that everyone has been participating in since the 1970s, then sure. But if by piracy you mean torrenting a hundred albums, then absolutely not. The only kind of 'piracy' DRM hurts is the kind everyone likes and nobody wants to ban.
If by piracy you mean the kind of content sharing that everyone has been participating in since the 1970s, then sure. But if by piracy you mean torrenting a hundred albums, then absolutely not. The only kind of 'piracy' DRM hurts is the kind everyone likes and nobody wants to ban.
>nobody wants to ban.
Except for the industries. They absolutely do want to ban this kind. Almost every single person on the internet is non-technical and doesn't even know how to torrent. If DRM prevents them from emailing a friend a copy, then DRM is doing exactly what the inventors want it to. That's the largest market share.
Also, emailing a song or video to a friend is far easier than handing a person a DVD, CD, or even a casette tape used to be. The old kind of sharing was tolerated because it still used to be easier to go buy an album than to get a copy. Today, that's not the case.
Except for the industries. They absolutely do want to ban this kind. Almost every single person on the internet is non-technical and doesn't even know how to torrent. If DRM prevents them from emailing a friend a copy, then DRM is doing exactly what the inventors want it to. That's the largest market share.
Also, emailing a song or video to a friend is far easier than handing a person a DVD, CD, or even a casette tape used to be. The old kind of sharing was tolerated because it still used to be easier to go buy an album than to get a copy. Today, that's not the case.
> I never realized that Louis C.K. was so mainstream. I thought his humor appealed to me and maybe three other people.
Well, he does have his own show on FX.
Well, he does have his own show on FX.
FX is the home of non-mainstream comedies.
Anything on TV more widely available than public access is, almost by definition, mainstream. Even the non-mainstream shows are mainstream, their selling point being that they're "non-mainstream."
If a show doesn't make big dollars for the network, it doesn't get on in the first place. Almost everything you see and touch today is mainstream, and if you think it isn't, it's because it's been marketed to you as non-mainstream.
If a show doesn't make big dollars for the network, it doesn't get on in the first place. Almost everything you see and touch today is mainstream, and if you think it isn't, it's because it's been marketed to you as non-mainstream.
I don't think that's quite fair. Some shows are more obscure than others. I'd use Parks & Recreation as an example of a "marketed as non-mainstream" show. It's not as popular as The Office, sure, but pretty much everyone has heard of it.
Louie is a bit different. Most people haven't heard of FX, and of those that have, most people haven't watched Louie. So while not obscure like "one copy of this book was ever published", it's not "mainstream" like Seinfeld.
Louie is a bit different. Most people haven't heard of FX, and of those that have, most people haven't watched Louie. So while not obscure like "one copy of this book was ever published", it's not "mainstream" like Seinfeld.
[deleted]
Actually, I think if you look at the ratings Comedy Central has more obscure comedies. I am assuming that "non-mainstream" translates to small audience. Keep in mind that while Sunny started out as a cult hit, it's about to become the longest running live action comedy on cable. In contrast, last Thursday The Daily Show did worse than Sunny, The League, and Beavis and Butthead.
And if you compare to broadcast, all of cable looks non-mainstream.
And if you compare to broadcast, all of cable looks non-mainstream.
>And if you compare to broadcast, all of cable looks non-mainstream.
That part is surprisingly less true nowadays. Pawn Stars on History this week got a 2.1 18-49 rating. Community on broadcast NBC got a 1.5.
That part is surprisingly less true nowadays. Pawn Stars on History this week got a 2.1 18-49 rating. Community on broadcast NBC got a 1.5.
[deleted]
> And finally, I never realized that Louis C.K. was so mainstream. I thought his humor appealed to me and maybe three other people.
You've spotted his genius. Like 90s-era Nine Inch Nails or Metallica, he is the popular act that feels subversive.
Reddit has this vibe too[1]. It's worth a fortune.
[1] I know, you liked it before it jumped the shark, etc etc.
You've spotted his genius. Like 90s-era Nine Inch Nails or Metallica, he is the popular act that feels subversive.
Reddit has this vibe too[1]. It's worth a fortune.
[1] I know, you liked it before it jumped the shark, etc etc.
While it may be true that all DRM is pointless in an ideal world there are cases where it actually works.
Good counter-examples are Autodesk's products (their DRM/dongles stand up for 6+ months) or the PS3 that took years for people to be able to play pirated games.
Good counter-examples are Autodesk's products (their DRM/dongles stand up for 6+ months) or the PS3 that took years for people to be able to play pirated games.
This most important piece here is that he's already broken even. Wow! I'd love to see the numbers comparing a Comedy Central production and Louis' self funded production. I bet there's countless areas of negligent spending in the CC production.
First, I think what Louis is doing is amazing and am a huge fan. Having said that however, how many other comedians can pull this off? He has a very large, very dedicated audience. Likewise for music. Trent Reznor can pull off very successful self-productions, but he's also Trent Reznor.
The question is, how can you make this model scale down to lesser-known acts?
The question is, how can you make this model scale down to lesser-known acts?
The best way to scale this down to lesser-known acts is to reduce the barriers to entry for both the comic and the audience.
More specifically, if comics had a free service or tool that allowed them to set a price, upload some content, and have a promotional site like he had for his show it could work wonders. YouTube does this pretty well, but what he's done is much better (though there's a lot of benefit to having lots of videos in one place with good discoverability). Recording and editing is also getting cheaper every day.
To lower the barrier for the audience, shows for new acts would need to be even cheaper or free. Once they build a following they can start charging more.
The iTunes model is almost certainly the one to follow here: sell it cheap and go for volume. If the content is good and the barrier is low, people will eat it up and the artists will get their fair share and more. The middlemen in this equation are really the biggest problem right now (for so many reasons).
More specifically, if comics had a free service or tool that allowed them to set a price, upload some content, and have a promotional site like he had for his show it could work wonders. YouTube does this pretty well, but what he's done is much better (though there's a lot of benefit to having lots of videos in one place with good discoverability). Recording and editing is also getting cheaper every day.
To lower the barrier for the audience, shows for new acts would need to be even cheaper or free. Once they build a following they can start charging more.
The iTunes model is almost certainly the one to follow here: sell it cheap and go for volume. If the content is good and the barrier is low, people will eat it up and the artists will get their fair share and more. The middlemen in this equation are really the biggest problem right now (for so many reasons).
You're describing a solution I'm spending my life trying to make happen! I'd love your feedback on it: http://gumroad.com — I think this is a huge need.
I think I've seen Gumroad before (here on HN?) and thought it was an awesome idea. Just took a look at your other work and I've gotta say - thanks for building such great stuff!
> Having said that however, how many other comedians can pull this off?
Quite a few, really. The golden example I think is Jimmy Pardo's podcast, which has been turning a tidy profit for a while now. He was pretty niche-y and not nationally known, unlike Louis, but has still created a successful business on comedy, self-production and self-distribution.
Quite a few, really. The golden example I think is Jimmy Pardo's podcast, which has been turning a tidy profit for a while now. He was pretty niche-y and not nationally known, unlike Louis, but has still created a successful business on comedy, self-production and self-distribution.
You start by spending years on the club circuit, developing your material, honing your craft, and building an audience by releasing content that your fans can share. In the short term, you make money from performing. In the longer term, you reach a point where you can make money from selling recordings.
It sort of reminds me of Kevin Kelly's 1000 True Fans ( http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fan... )
I hate this argument. So let's take it a step further.
How can this model scale down to unpopular acts? Or untalented ones? Or people who just started making art last week?
Because everyone who makes any art at all is entitled to compensation, right?
How can this model scale down to unpopular acts? Or untalented ones? Or people who just started making art last week?
Because everyone who makes any art at all is entitled to compensation, right?
I hate this argument too, so it's a good thing no one in this thread is making it.
The conversation here is about discovering talented acts who would have been popular in a classic promotion environment but need the initial audience.
The conversation here is about discovering talented acts who would have been popular in a classic promotion environment but need the initial audience.
who would have been popular in a classic promotion environment
wat
Because the time and energy of the world's hackers is best spent on cargo cult business models attempting to mimic successes of yore?
How about developing tools to facilitate discovery of talented acts who will be popular in the current, real world environment where there's an internet, and people use it to find and distribute things?
To borrow a metaphor from Brian Eno, if recorded music (or any other duplicated and widely distributed art) is whale blubber, and we've reached the point of oil refinement, in what universe is the optimum response a sharper harpoon?
wat
Because the time and energy of the world's hackers is best spent on cargo cult business models attempting to mimic successes of yore?
How about developing tools to facilitate discovery of talented acts who will be popular in the current, real world environment where there's an internet, and people use it to find and distribute things?
To borrow a metaphor from Brian Eno, if recorded music (or any other duplicated and widely distributed art) is whale blubber, and we've reached the point of oil refinement, in what universe is the optimum response a sharper harpoon?
Sure, we can look at that, but then the experiences of people like Louis CK, Brian Eno, Trent Reznor, Radiohead, etc., are not particularly relevant, because they got famous in the old system, so aren't really examples of anything except, "if you got famous via old-style promotion, once you're famous, you can then sell direct online successfully". To reach a conclusion that you don't need the old-style promotion at all, we need more experiences of people who did not first get famous that way.
As is often the case, look to hip hop.. Odd Future, lil-b, Das Racist and (in the beginning) Soulja Boy are all examples of leveraging online presence into widespread popularity
Well...look at stuff like Minecraft. Notch was nobody, he just made something that people wanted.
Notch was hardly nobody. He was already a seasoned programmer who had worked on hits like "Luxor."
"Overnight success" usually takes years.
"Overnight success" usually takes years.
Notch was also an anomaly. I agree that it's a beautiful story, but rules aren't defined by their exceptions.
Success is an anomaly.
That's not much of a useful consideration then; a more relevant question is how some non-negligible percentage of people can achieve at least moderate success, not how a handful of people can do something anomalous that gets famous (that'll always happen one way or another).
how some non-negligible percentage of people can achieve at least moderate success, not how a handful of people can do something anomalous that gets famous
The internet is unarguably a huge advantage for people on the lower end. There are some people who have been knocked form being successful in the traditional media to being successful on the internet only, but that internet group includes them and people who would have never been successful in the traditional media. I don't even think that's a question. The only reason someone who would have been successful in traditional media isn't successful on the Internet is that the increased ease of competition made it clear that they suck and they pushed them out.
The internet is unarguably a huge advantage for people on the lower end. There are some people who have been knocked form being successful in the traditional media to being successful on the internet only, but that internet group includes them and people who would have never been successful in the traditional media. I don't even think that's a question. The only reason someone who would have been successful in traditional media isn't successful on the Internet is that the increased ease of competition made it clear that they suck and they pushed them out.
I think it all comes down to marketing and advertising. In the end you may not make as much with an HBO/Comedy Central special, but would anyone know who Louis CK is without these?
It's more of a branding thing with the specials and getting your name out there. It may not payoff up front, but the deals that come after it (such as Louie, the TV show) make it well worth it in exchange for the money lost.
The trick isn't really building a platform for smaller indie people to do these sort of things, that's easy and already available widely. The trick is building a service where these smaller indie people can make it big without having to go through the big players like HBO/Comedy Central first. YouTube is on the right track and Pandora/Spotify seems to be doing this for music, they just need time to growth, because as big as YouTube is, it still doesn't have the weight and advertising ability that a channel like HBO/Comedy Central has. As the ability to sift through the junk becomes better and better via analysis of social cues/demographics, it will be easier for these sort of simple "I don't care if you pirate because it's cheap enough" models to take off for smaller people. But at that point YouTube or whoever fills that gap just becomes the next HBO/Comedy Central and the cycle repeats.
Bottom line is there's always going to be a "big wig" who owns almost all the eggs. For standup comedy it's Comedy Central and HBO. If you can make it there you're set. Maybe someday it will be the YouTube comedy channel, but someones going to always come out ahead and being the leader means you can set your own price on what you wish to pay (as HBO/Comedy Central has done here).
It's more of a branding thing with the specials and getting your name out there. It may not payoff up front, but the deals that come after it (such as Louie, the TV show) make it well worth it in exchange for the money lost.
The trick isn't really building a platform for smaller indie people to do these sort of things, that's easy and already available widely. The trick is building a service where these smaller indie people can make it big without having to go through the big players like HBO/Comedy Central first. YouTube is on the right track and Pandora/Spotify seems to be doing this for music, they just need time to growth, because as big as YouTube is, it still doesn't have the weight and advertising ability that a channel like HBO/Comedy Central has. As the ability to sift through the junk becomes better and better via analysis of social cues/demographics, it will be easier for these sort of simple "I don't care if you pirate because it's cheap enough" models to take off for smaller people. But at that point YouTube or whoever fills that gap just becomes the next HBO/Comedy Central and the cycle repeats.
Bottom line is there's always going to be a "big wig" who owns almost all the eggs. For standup comedy it's Comedy Central and HBO. If you can make it there you're set. Maybe someday it will be the YouTube comedy channel, but someones going to always come out ahead and being the leader means you can set your own price on what you wish to pay (as HBO/Comedy Central has done here).
Nitpick: I agree with much of what you've said here, but as it pertains to Spotify, the majors have them by the balls, and the financial predicament that puts them in likely has some influence on their outrageously low payout rates which are steadily alienating musicians, independent and "signed" alike. (As an independent/amateur electronic musician, one of the qualities I look for in a distributor to get my music on iTunes, etc. is "does not submit songs to Spotify.")
I suspect that the type of solution you've described may work, but in its current incarnation, Spotify aint it.
I suspect that the type of solution you've described may work, but in its current incarnation, Spotify aint it.
In terms of distribution, SoundCloud and YouTube is very very close to being a good alternative to centrally-run companies of old. In terms of comedy, Derrick Comedy was actually really popular even before one of their stars got on Network television, simply from uploading videos on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/derrickcomedy.
Musically, one artist that's blown up solely from releasing their own material on the internet is The Weeknd ( http://www.the-weeknd.com/) , who makes and posts songs much more often than a band on a label does (his schedule seems to be one EP every six months or so).
Musically, one artist that's blown up solely from releasing their own material on the internet is The Weeknd ( http://www.the-weeknd.com/) , who makes and posts songs much more often than a band on a label does (his schedule seems to be one EP every six months or so).
Maybe they could do a humblemediabundle.com type of deal. (humblebundle.com sells indie game packages for whatever you want to pay).
In books, the answer is to sell eBooks priced at impulse levels, then sell thousands or millions of copies.
For instance, the #5 seller on the Kindle is a $1 book: http://www.amazon.com/Wife-by-Wednesday-ebook/dp/B005SJLB24/...
For instance, the #5 seller on the Kindle is a $1 book: http://www.amazon.com/Wife-by-Wednesday-ebook/dp/B005SJLB24/...
This only scales so far. Once more books are priced at impulse levels, it will provide less of an advantage and ultimately hurt your bottom line compared to the current typical price level.
It's similar to web apps being "free" in order to attract eyes/users. I think competing on other fronts (quality, connection with users/readers, obsession with consumer satisfaction) are preferable to cutting price because it's "too easy" to compete on price
It's similar to web apps being "free" in order to attract eyes/users. I think competing on other fronts (quality, connection with users/readers, obsession with consumer satisfaction) are preferable to cutting price because it's "too easy" to compete on price
Got any examples of this? I mean, lots of stuff (gum and "People" magazine at the grocery store, screwdriver bits and flashlights at the hardware store) is priced at impulse levels in lots of stores, lots of types of stores. Whose bottom line is that hurting? Dewalt's or Wrigley's or Maglite's? I don't really think so.
Not to mention he has total control over the look and presentation of the material (editing, lighting, no commercials) because it's his money.
The content provider used to pay for the special, but now comedians are paying that cost up front and then selling the rights to air it. The next step is that the comedians just distribute their material themselves. (I'm sure there's a start-up opportunity there!)
This is inevitable because comedians are realizing that podcasts, not mass media TV or radio, are the best way to reach their audience for live shows, merch and record content income. In my opinion it's also because comedians can foster engagement with their fans on a deeper level than musicians because they are talking right to them.
The content provider used to pay for the special, but now comedians are paying that cost up front and then selling the rights to air it. The next step is that the comedians just distribute their material themselves. (I'm sure there's a start-up opportunity there!)
This is inevitable because comedians are realizing that podcasts, not mass media TV or radio, are the best way to reach their audience for live shows, merch and record content income. In my opinion it's also because comedians can foster engagement with their fans on a deeper level than musicians because they are talking right to them.
Wow! I'd love to see the numbers comparing a Comedy Central production and Louis' self funded production. I bet there's countless areas of negligent spending in the CC production.
People said the same when Radiohead self-released their album. But the problem is that both Radiohead and Louis CK have benefited from EMI and Comedy Central boosting their profile for years.
A new artist can't release their own work and achieve these levels of success.
People said the same when Radiohead self-released their album. But the problem is that both Radiohead and Louis CK have benefited from EMI and Comedy Central boosting their profile for years.
A new artist can't release their own work and achieve these levels of success.
>A new artist can't release their own work and achieve these levels of success.
No, but they've never been able to. They've always had to grind it out making no money in open mic nights, or starting for another artist "for the exposure". Between Youtube and the ease of self-distribution, it is now possible for artists to bypass the studio distribution deals that take such a large cut and result in higher prices for consumers and fans.
No, but they've never been able to. They've always had to grind it out making no money in open mic nights, or starting for another artist "for the exposure". Between Youtube and the ease of self-distribution, it is now possible for artists to bypass the studio distribution deals that take such a large cut and result in higher prices for consumers and fans.
Actually he said, "...And I've got the money back already. I broke even — and then some."
So not only did he break even, he has earned some additional money. And his initial statement ""I've never seen a check from a [TV] comedy special," says that doing comedy specials the 'regular' way earned him nothing.
Now I expect it is a bit more nuanced than that, in that he was no doubt paid an appearance fee for being in a comedy special, and he didn't put up the money to produce those specials So his "net" was the fee and opportunity cost of the time he didn't spend producing the special.
Contrast that with the one he put up on the web, he paid all the costs (although I assume the 'audience' in the special also paid to attend). The and it took some time no doubt to do the post production work and to put it up for streaming, etc. Which went up on the 10th of December and here 3 days later has broken even "plus a bit more."
Over the course of the year, more people will watch it, and while the volume goes down, the tail stretches out for literally years. He's got this material that has paid for itself and he can license it to Netflix for their streaming service, picking up a bit of change when people watch it there. He can put it up on iTunes or Amazon's video service and pick up some cash when it rolls there. And the killer?
Is he makes another 'special', and now that folks are coming to the web page he puts up for the first one, he can list them both.
Eventually (sooner rather than later) he's got a catalog of comedy bits, several distribution channels and a stready revenue stream and there isn't a 'media company' (like a Viacom or Sony) anywhere in sight.
Now someone else says "Hey man, that rocks how can I do that?" and they convert over. And two, maybe five, years from now "suddenly" everyone seems to be their own production/distribution company and a new ecosystem sprouts that helps those companies get their content to market and Netflix/Amazon/Apple are cutting deals with them directly and you and I win because we get better quality stuff and not so much of the hassles and the media companies lose.
Can't wait.
So not only did he break even, he has earned some additional money. And his initial statement ""I've never seen a check from a [TV] comedy special," says that doing comedy specials the 'regular' way earned him nothing.
Now I expect it is a bit more nuanced than that, in that he was no doubt paid an appearance fee for being in a comedy special, and he didn't put up the money to produce those specials So his "net" was the fee and opportunity cost of the time he didn't spend producing the special.
Contrast that with the one he put up on the web, he paid all the costs (although I assume the 'audience' in the special also paid to attend). The and it took some time no doubt to do the post production work and to put it up for streaming, etc. Which went up on the 10th of December and here 3 days later has broken even "plus a bit more."
Over the course of the year, more people will watch it, and while the volume goes down, the tail stretches out for literally years. He's got this material that has paid for itself and he can license it to Netflix for their streaming service, picking up a bit of change when people watch it there. He can put it up on iTunes or Amazon's video service and pick up some cash when it rolls there. And the killer?
Is he makes another 'special', and now that folks are coming to the web page he puts up for the first one, he can list them both.
Eventually (sooner rather than later) he's got a catalog of comedy bits, several distribution channels and a stready revenue stream and there isn't a 'media company' (like a Viacom or Sony) anywhere in sight.
Now someone else says "Hey man, that rocks how can I do that?" and they convert over. And two, maybe five, years from now "suddenly" everyone seems to be their own production/distribution company and a new ecosystem sprouts that helps those companies get their content to market and Netflix/Amazon/Apple are cutting deals with them directly and you and I win because we get better quality stuff and not so much of the hassles and the media companies lose.
Can't wait.
Sketched out well. I listen a lot of podcasts by comedians and they all think what Louis CK is doing is great. I'd imagine that some that aren't quite as popular as him think they can't do it too, but once they see that it isn't insurmountable it will happen more. Comics are really protective of their material and want control of it: a few months back there was a big controversy over Stitcher.com grabbing RSS feeds and putting ads on them (http://www.nerdist.com/2011/09/the-stitcher-situation/).
Except people don't do Comedy Central specials for the money, they do it to get exposure. Heralding C.K's success is like how people praised Radiohead for releasing their album independently. He already has a rabid and loyal fan base, but that's after working the comedy scene, writing for big shows, having stand-up specials on HBO. This article makes it seem like anybody can generate their own material, promote it and eventually have their own TV show, but there's a lot more to it than that.
Someone has to be first. If this goes well for Louis maybe that will make other comedians do the same. The power balance shifts. There's no reason why he can't sell material from other comedians too.
What a sweet deal for Comedy Central! They've convinced everybody that somehow there's no money to pay them, they'll just have to do it for free. That sounds suspiciously convenient.
On the WTF Podcast by Marc Maron, he explains how his terrible buying habits with an Amex black card, including a new Mercedes, a sojourn at the Ritz, and a brass instrument, led to his inability to get a credit card for many years.
He basically lost his way after comedy clubs closed in the late 80's and had to reinvent himself. Youtube his old "I have a peach" routine to understand his reinvention. Here is a version of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZfVCSzEw0
He basically lost his way after comedy clubs closed in the late 80's and had to reinvent himself. Youtube his old "I have a peach" routine to understand his reinvention. Here is a version of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZfVCSzEw0
I was listening to this today to and from lunch, and can't wait to catch the whole thing later. I wanted to share it with the redditers and imgur LCK fans, so I'm glad its this high on the HN list because that means they've probably are all reading/hearing it like I'd hoped. I hope it continues to get spread and discussed.
Unrelated note: Awesome to hear that he listens to Fresh Air regularly. More people need to know that NPR and APM aren't just for weirdos and boring old folks. I'm 27 and love NPR, and although I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it in high school, I do wish I had discovered it wayyyy earlier in my life.
Unrelated note: Awesome to hear that he listens to Fresh Air regularly. More people need to know that NPR and APM aren't just for weirdos and boring old folks. I'm 27 and love NPR, and although I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it in high school, I do wish I had discovered it wayyyy earlier in my life.
Louis CK is a pretty interesting dude. I was quite surprised when in his Reddit AMA he revealed he did the video editing on the comedy special. Pretty awesome.
Can't believe someone put it on a Torrent site with that lame excuse. His experiment is interesting and I think it works but only for acts like him. I'd like to see stats on the Humble Indy bundles I feel they follow the same model but at a smaller scale.
It's like when Sam Odio wrecked Jonathan's Card, there is always going to be that one jackass.
Thankfully though people can still feel good about paying for this after somebody does that.
Thankfully though people can still feel good about paying for this after somebody does that.
The torrent includes a link to the "BUY THIS VIDEO" page. I paid for the video and didn't download it from his website.
I would be interested in knowing what the bandwidth costs for Louis C.K. are since the video was around 1GB. The number of torrenters was 10,000. That's 10TB of bandwidth which I imagine costs quite a bit...so those torrenters were saving him a bit of cash.
I would be interested in knowing what the bandwidth costs for Louis C.K. are since the video was around 1GB. The number of torrenters was 10,000. That's 10TB of bandwidth which I imagine costs quite a bit...so those torrenters were saving him a bit of cash.
Buying the special allows you only two downloads, even if the download doesn't complete. My first try, the Wi-Fi dropped; luckily, the second worked. While waiting, I was bemused thinking that I would have a legitimate reason to torrent if it didn't go through. (Actually, I would have just bought it again, as an excuse to give the man more money. Like his bit with the veteran on the plane, I got a hit of feeling good about myself without actually having to follow through. :P)
Fair enough, though I wasn't at all upset at the idea of seeding the video 'cause honestly digital distribution should be free, just the note he put with the seed felt selfish and in the context of the article did not include a link.
I understand as an alternate to downloading and getting what you paid for sure, you can seed it. But don't put it up there with a note that says the video should be free.
I understand as an alternate to downloading and getting what you paid for sure, you can seed it. But don't put it up there with a note that says the video should be free.
[deleted]
I like Louis C.K., was made aware of his new video through this posting, and just bought the video, but I don't think this belongs on HN.
"What to Submit ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." [1]
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What exactly does he mean he's never seen a check, he does TV specials for free?
it means that he gets paid a small advance, does the show, and then the networks collect all the dvd and merch sales and dont give him any royalties...
So how do I buy it without Paypal? Oh well. Maybe that can be the next battle.
this is great because illegal downloading seems like such a victimless crime, but here we have a specific victim and so the 'crime' all of the sudden has drastically changed in scope.
I was surprised that he revealed yesterday in the reddit thing that he has never owned a home or had real financial security. I'm enough of a fan to know that he is definitely not rich from comedy, but I somehow figured he had made enough to own a home outright at least.
FTA: "And a friend of mine who does torrent stuff a lot says that when torrent users do buy something, they act like they're doing the greatest thing ever. ... They're saying, 'I bought something today. I paid for it. And I didn't steal it. I'm the greatest person alive.'"
I've noticed this attitude as well. It's really, really annoying.
FTA: "And a friend of mine who does torrent stuff a lot says that when torrent users do buy something, they act like they're doing the greatest thing ever. ... They're saying, 'I bought something today. I paid for it. And I didn't steal it. I'm the greatest person alive.'"
I've noticed this attitude as well. It's really, really annoying.
Has that really been the response that this Louis C.K. video has received though? The "I'm awesome because I didn't pirate this" attitude?
I'll admit I've pirated things, and I'll admit that I did feel good about myself for buying this video. The good feeling, in my mind, had nothing to do with having paid rather than pirated. I liked that he was bucking convention, and trying his own distribution model, and the lack of DRM and just eliminating all, or as many barriers as possible. I wanted to support the effort.
He gave the public a clean product, priced it very reasonably (even cheaply), and he made a profit on it. Now, in this case the business model was 'Be Louis C.K.', and it probably wouldn't work for some up and comer, but I was actually surprised to find in this article that he had already made a profit (he said on reddit that he had yet to really push the marketing for this, so I'm assuming there will be additional profit to come for a while).
I'd absolutely love to see Louis leverage the infrastructure he's built for this experiment into something more substantial - licensing other artists to release their works themselves through his site, rolling the profits into new development, and see where it goes.
Maybe I'm just deluding myself, and I'm just masking an "I'm the greatest for not pirating this" attitude behind a veneer of "supporting new media". I don't know. I just know that torrenting this video never even occurred to me. I had heard of this experiment, and thought it was a cool idea. Then, a friend told that he'd really enjoyed it, so I gave in and threw $5 at it and laughed my ass off at the video (if you haven't seen it, I do recommend it).
I'll admit I've pirated things, and I'll admit that I did feel good about myself for buying this video. The good feeling, in my mind, had nothing to do with having paid rather than pirated. I liked that he was bucking convention, and trying his own distribution model, and the lack of DRM and just eliminating all, or as many barriers as possible. I wanted to support the effort.
He gave the public a clean product, priced it very reasonably (even cheaply), and he made a profit on it. Now, in this case the business model was 'Be Louis C.K.', and it probably wouldn't work for some up and comer, but I was actually surprised to find in this article that he had already made a profit (he said on reddit that he had yet to really push the marketing for this, so I'm assuming there will be additional profit to come for a while).
I'd absolutely love to see Louis leverage the infrastructure he's built for this experiment into something more substantial - licensing other artists to release their works themselves through his site, rolling the profits into new development, and see where it goes.
Maybe I'm just deluding myself, and I'm just masking an "I'm the greatest for not pirating this" attitude behind a veneer of "supporting new media". I don't know. I just know that torrenting this video never even occurred to me. I had heard of this experiment, and thought it was a cool idea. Then, a friend told that he'd really enjoyed it, so I gave in and threw $5 at it and laughed my ass off at the video (if you haven't seen it, I do recommend it).
> Has that really been the response that this Louis C.K. video has received though? The "I'm awesome because I didn't pirate this" attitude?
Yes. I belong to a number of private trackers and out of curiosity I checked to see if it had been torrented. One has an all-out flamewar between people who bought it and people who didn't. Over a thousand downloads.
Yes. I belong to a number of private trackers and out of curiosity I checked to see if it had been torrented. One has an all-out flamewar between people who bought it and people who didn't. Over a thousand downloads.
I saw this yesterday in demonoid, and was kind of funny to see that.
And some people felt more awesome, because they have bought and download the torrent "to save the site bandwith".
And some people felt more awesome, because they have bought and download the torrent "to save the site bandwith".
The funniest thing you see from pirate release groups and other distributors of such material (or so friends tell me...) is when (and it happens often enough) one lot gets all indignant because someone else copied their release and removed the credit. And they really don't seem to see the irony in their complaints.
> I liked that he was bucking convention, and trying his own distribution model, and the lack of DRM and just eliminating all, or as many barriers as possible. I wanted to support the effort.
So if this were ever to become the norm, would the equilibrium again shift back to people just plain grabbing stuff again, because efforts like this would not stand out any more?
So if this were ever to become the norm, would the equilibrium again shift back to people just plain grabbing stuff again, because efforts like this would not stand out any more?
There are always going to be people who just plain grab stuff. That ship has long since sailed. For better or worse, we're shifting to digital media now, and the people who break/remove DRM from said media has consistently beaten the people who create it. More importantly, entities like iTunes (and now Louis C.K.) have shown that you can maintain a profit by removing the DRM and giving the people a clean product.
We're already living in a world where you can easily get a digital product for free, whether it's a movie or a tv show or a song or an ebook, so I think the only thing that's left to do is to radically shift all of these industries so that their content becomes just as easy to obtain legally as it is to pirate.
I seem to recall someone, I think it was Joel Spolsky, talking about Napster, and he said something to the effect that Napster's achievement wasn't that you could get songs for free, it was that you could decide you wanted to hear a song and you were able to hear that song pretty much instantly.
If you make your content easy to obtain legally, and if you remove the DRM handcuffs from those who do obtain content in this way, I think you'll find that a lot more people will choose to pay for it.
The trick is that a lot of this stuff is still complicated, and companies are desperately hanging on to old business models, and things are counter-intuitive to people who do buy.
For example, I don't own a Kindle. I have no real desire to own a Kindle because I'm a really slow reader and I only read one book at a time. If I'm on the bus and want to read, I'll carry that one book with me. If I go on vacation, I'll take three or four books an I won't get through all of them.
My girlfriend, on the other hand, might benefit from a Kindle, since she reads a lot, but I hate the implementation of them.
My understanding is that Kindles, when speaking from the context of Amazon DRM, only read books owned by a single account. If I buy a book on my account, and she buys a book on her account, the same Kindle can't have both books on at the same time without stripping the DRM. So you're left with three solutions:
1. Strip the DRM off the book. This is the same as piracy, from a legal perspective, though admittedly it's harder to get caught. If you're going this route, then why not just say fuck it and torrent the book from the start?
2. Buy all books under a single account, then use that same account on two Kindles. The problem with this is that people hook up and break up. If you break up, either one person loses all their books, or you "pirate" them a la Option 1. Also, if you enter a new relationship and both parties have Kindles with their own accounts, you can't reconcile the two without resorting to Option 1 and breaking the DRM.
3. Buy the book twice. This is incredibly counter-intuitive to most people who are used to sharing their physical copy of a book.
So basically what I'm saying is that there are a lot of problems with digital content that need to be resolved, but the public perspective on these industries has already shifted, and all that's left is for industry to either adapt or die. The people who pirate content when faced with an option to easily buy will always pirate that content. They will also always have the ability to pirate that content, because even after a decade of trying people are still able to easily strip DRM, and people will always be around to break and strip new forms of DRM (not to mention that DRM in general is dying because it's user-hostile and no consumer wants it). I think "the norm" will be "default buy" when content becomes easily accessible legally, but you're never going to eliminate the subset of the population that outright refuses to pay for content.
We're already living in a world where you can easily get a digital product for free, whether it's a movie or a tv show or a song or an ebook, so I think the only thing that's left to do is to radically shift all of these industries so that their content becomes just as easy to obtain legally as it is to pirate.
I seem to recall someone, I think it was Joel Spolsky, talking about Napster, and he said something to the effect that Napster's achievement wasn't that you could get songs for free, it was that you could decide you wanted to hear a song and you were able to hear that song pretty much instantly.
If you make your content easy to obtain legally, and if you remove the DRM handcuffs from those who do obtain content in this way, I think you'll find that a lot more people will choose to pay for it.
The trick is that a lot of this stuff is still complicated, and companies are desperately hanging on to old business models, and things are counter-intuitive to people who do buy.
For example, I don't own a Kindle. I have no real desire to own a Kindle because I'm a really slow reader and I only read one book at a time. If I'm on the bus and want to read, I'll carry that one book with me. If I go on vacation, I'll take three or four books an I won't get through all of them.
My girlfriend, on the other hand, might benefit from a Kindle, since she reads a lot, but I hate the implementation of them.
My understanding is that Kindles, when speaking from the context of Amazon DRM, only read books owned by a single account. If I buy a book on my account, and she buys a book on her account, the same Kindle can't have both books on at the same time without stripping the DRM. So you're left with three solutions:
1. Strip the DRM off the book. This is the same as piracy, from a legal perspective, though admittedly it's harder to get caught. If you're going this route, then why not just say fuck it and torrent the book from the start?
2. Buy all books under a single account, then use that same account on two Kindles. The problem with this is that people hook up and break up. If you break up, either one person loses all their books, or you "pirate" them a la Option 1. Also, if you enter a new relationship and both parties have Kindles with their own accounts, you can't reconcile the two without resorting to Option 1 and breaking the DRM.
3. Buy the book twice. This is incredibly counter-intuitive to most people who are used to sharing their physical copy of a book.
So basically what I'm saying is that there are a lot of problems with digital content that need to be resolved, but the public perspective on these industries has already shifted, and all that's left is for industry to either adapt or die. The people who pirate content when faced with an option to easily buy will always pirate that content. They will also always have the ability to pirate that content, because even after a decade of trying people are still able to easily strip DRM, and people will always be around to break and strip new forms of DRM (not to mention that DRM in general is dying because it's user-hostile and no consumer wants it). I think "the norm" will be "default buy" when content becomes easily accessible legally, but you're never going to eliminate the subset of the population that outright refuses to pay for content.
I bought it because it was convenient.
I also torrent because it is convenient. Price is not the issue for me.
I'm in Australia, which means I typically have to wait for something to come out on DVD before I can watch it legally. I can't purchase through amazon, and Australian distributors don't get American shows until months(sometimes years) after they're released in the States.
I feel good because I got it when it was released, and it was legal.
EDIT: PS. I love NPR
I also torrent because it is convenient. Price is not the issue for me.
I'm in Australia, which means I typically have to wait for something to come out on DVD before I can watch it legally. I can't purchase through amazon, and Australian distributors don't get American shows until months(sometimes years) after they're released in the States.
I feel good because I got it when it was released, and it was legal.
EDIT: PS. I love NPR
I think this is a legitimate concern amd something that needs to be addressed. The internet and instant global news and information means that we are aware of the output of the entertainment industry immediately - and any attempt to stop that is just going to fail. There is no end to the technical arms race.
I remember vividly discovering that my PC's DVD-ROM drive was region-locked and that to watch anything from another region I had to allow the region to be changed and that there are was a limit to how many times I could change it.
I discovered this, being unaware of the region-locking mechanism, after buying several DVDs while travelling. It made me disproportionately angry and since then I've seen and noticed the situation getting worse and worse.
I remember vividly discovering that my PC's DVD-ROM drive was region-locked and that to watch anything from another region I had to allow the region to be changed and that there are was a limit to how many times I could change it.
I discovered this, being unaware of the region-locking mechanism, after buying several DVDs while travelling. It made me disproportionately angry and since then I've seen and noticed the situation getting worse and worse.
Me: I want to watch the film
DVD: No. You will first watch the adverts.
DVD: No. You will first watch the adverts.
I agree that the attitude which some torrent users have (feeling good when they actually pay for things) is annoying.
However, nobody can deny that computers and the internet have irreversibly changed the game. It is simply no longer default that one must purchase information. Information doesn't want to be free, it just is free (for better or for worse).
However, nobody can deny that computers and the internet have irreversibly changed the game. It is simply no longer default that one must purchase information. Information doesn't want to be free, it just is free (for better or for worse).
I don't believe it was ever default that one must purchase information.
books, sheet music, information used to be more expensive by far than it is now.
Hell, the ability to read meant you were upper class much more than a fleet of private jets towed by gold-plated BMWs.
I've seen him live a couple times, and he's gotten up on stage and joked about how much more money he has than everyone in the entire room. I don't think he's hurting.
>joked about how much more money he has than everyone in the entire room
When comedians say things like this, it's almost always about manipulating their perceived status relative to the audience. That's why you'll see him say the opposite in other situations. It's all just playing games with status. To make different bits work, comedians either need to be perceived as higher or lower status than their audience, to garner the sympathy/revulsion needed to make the surrounding material come off properly.
EDIT: came up with a better way to state this: sometimes you need to be the underdog, sometimes you need to be an alpha-asshole.
Here is the superb Stewart Lee talking about this issue in a recent interview about his new series, which is mostly his standup:
What was Chris Morris's input as script editor?
"He really helped fix a particular problem. I noticed reviews saying that I was arrogant and condescending. I thought, 'That's interesting because it doesn't feel like that live'. In the room I'm able to fabricate some kind of struggle whereby the gig isn't quite working. I'm a lower-status character, so when you criticise someone you don't do it from a position of authority or strength - it doesn't seem arrogant."
How did Chris fix that on screen?
"I wanted some sort of device that would lower my status or make me appear to be under pressure. I spent days on end talking to Chris about different ideas to get that to work. We ended up with Armando Iannucci interviewing me throughout the series in a hostile way - criticising all the material and my role in the programme. That's cut in with all the stand-up and it works really well."
Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-qqtvsNDI
Very few people can manipulate a room like Stewart Lee.
When comedians say things like this, it's almost always about manipulating their perceived status relative to the audience. That's why you'll see him say the opposite in other situations. It's all just playing games with status. To make different bits work, comedians either need to be perceived as higher or lower status than their audience, to garner the sympathy/revulsion needed to make the surrounding material come off properly.
EDIT: came up with a better way to state this: sometimes you need to be the underdog, sometimes you need to be an alpha-asshole.
Here is the superb Stewart Lee talking about this issue in a recent interview about his new series, which is mostly his standup:
What was Chris Morris's input as script editor?
"He really helped fix a particular problem. I noticed reviews saying that I was arrogant and condescending. I thought, 'That's interesting because it doesn't feel like that live'. In the room I'm able to fabricate some kind of struggle whereby the gig isn't quite working. I'm a lower-status character, so when you criticise someone you don't do it from a position of authority or strength - it doesn't seem arrogant."
How did Chris fix that on screen?
"I wanted some sort of device that would lower my status or make me appear to be under pressure. I spent days on end talking to Chris about different ideas to get that to work. We ended up with Armando Iannucci interviewing me throughout the series in a hostile way - criticising all the material and my role in the programme. That's cut in with all the stand-up and it works really well."
Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-qqtvsNDI
Very few people can manipulate a room like Stewart Lee.
That's why the bit worked (but, let's leave the frog gently steamed instead of boiled). But I'm saying, I don't think he was making that up. I think he was able to sell the bit because everyone, himself included, believes it to be fundamentally true. Which very simple math corroborates. The first Louis CK show I saw was at the Vic, a tiny theater, which sold out 1000 seats at $35+/ticket on a two-show night.
The second show I saw sold out the Chicago Theater on another two-show night.
The second show I saw sold out the Chicago Theater on another two-show night.
* Booking the venue
* Paying the venue staff
* Producing marketing materials
* Doing the actual marketing
* Transport
* Hotel
* Transport for the support acts
* Hotel for the support acts
* Fee for the support acts
* Fee for the support acts' agents
* Insurance
* Agency fees
Then of course the money he does take might have to support him and his family through months of zero income while he writes new stuff.
His overhead could be 70% and he'd still be taking home huge amounts of money for every tour.
He's selling out shows and has been for at least ~4 years now. If the tours weren't lucrative, he'd raise the face price of tickets.
Sorry, I just don't buy the idea that Louis CK is anything but "pretty wealthy" at this point in his career. Which is great, because he's one of my favorite performers anywhere.
He's selling out shows and has been for at least ~4 years now. If the tours weren't lucrative, he'd raise the face price of tickets.
Sorry, I just don't buy the idea that Louis CK is anything but "pretty wealthy" at this point in his career. Which is great, because he's one of my favorite performers anywhere.
Yep, you're almost certainly right. I'd bet on it being more than 70% though.
Posting this anonymously because I don't want to seem like I'm plugging myself and my management would probably get angry.
I'm a standup as well, not quite as large as CK but a number of tv spots under my belt etc.
But it's absolutely right. There's barely anything.
You're average split goes a bit something like this:
Depends where you are. On average a theatre takes around 30%. A bit less in Australia (eg Melbourne Comedy Festival) which takes about 20%-25%. A bit more in European theatres (eg Edinburgh Fringe Festival) around 40%-45%.
Booking / Ticketing fee is around $3-$8 per ticket. For the average show ticket price that's about 10%.
Management takes a flat 15%-25%.
Depending on the scale of marketing, on average it's around 15% of the show budget. The industry wisdom is at least 10% of every ticket should be spent on getting people.
If there is a huge promoter behind you, they sometimes take a stake in the show, usually around 30% - 60% and includes the marketing budget. It's not that you're trying to convince people. It's more like, if they don't know you're there, they won't come.
Then all the travel / accomodation costs.
That's if you're doing theatre shows. The other side of the coin is college campuses, corporate entertainment, which pay a flat rate. The largest gig I did was opened in a 30k seat stadium and I made $4,000.... so not a lot.
Plus you're always touring, unable to maintain relationships, getting heckled (few careers involve being openly sworn at by masses, it's not healthy for self-esteem), feeling like a self-promoting whore and constantly wanting to die because you're whole career is shouting into darkness.
That doesn't even include the opportunity cost. It takes 10 years to get to the point where you can reliably book a 1000 seat theatre. That's assuming anybody comes in the first place... Until then you're making nothing.
It's not uncommon to see someone sell out a show and walk away with very little.
Whilst what CK did is amazing. I don't think it can be done by most standups. I think it would have turned out differently if he didn't have a tv show airing already, basically he's at the top of his career.
The scary part is if standup isn't as as lucrative as it's made out to be. Theatre in general is even worse...
But hey, we're all rockstars!
I'm a standup as well, not quite as large as CK but a number of tv spots under my belt etc.
But it's absolutely right. There's barely anything.
You're average split goes a bit something like this:
Depends where you are. On average a theatre takes around 30%. A bit less in Australia (eg Melbourne Comedy Festival) which takes about 20%-25%. A bit more in European theatres (eg Edinburgh Fringe Festival) around 40%-45%.
Booking / Ticketing fee is around $3-$8 per ticket. For the average show ticket price that's about 10%.
Management takes a flat 15%-25%.
Depending on the scale of marketing, on average it's around 15% of the show budget. The industry wisdom is at least 10% of every ticket should be spent on getting people.
If there is a huge promoter behind you, they sometimes take a stake in the show, usually around 30% - 60% and includes the marketing budget. It's not that you're trying to convince people. It's more like, if they don't know you're there, they won't come.
Then all the travel / accomodation costs.
That's if you're doing theatre shows. The other side of the coin is college campuses, corporate entertainment, which pay a flat rate. The largest gig I did was opened in a 30k seat stadium and I made $4,000.... so not a lot.
Plus you're always touring, unable to maintain relationships, getting heckled (few careers involve being openly sworn at by masses, it's not healthy for self-esteem), feeling like a self-promoting whore and constantly wanting to die because you're whole career is shouting into darkness.
That doesn't even include the opportunity cost. It takes 10 years to get to the point where you can reliably book a 1000 seat theatre. That's assuming anybody comes in the first place... Until then you're making nothing.
It's not uncommon to see someone sell out a show and walk away with very little.
Whilst what CK did is amazing. I don't think it can be done by most standups. I think it would have turned out differently if he didn't have a tv show airing already, basically he's at the top of his career.
The scary part is if standup isn't as as lucrative as it's made out to be. Theatre in general is even worse...
But hey, we're all rockstars!
Thanks for posting this.
I got started in standup about 10 years ago and went from doing 2-minutes at an open mic to MC at the DC Improv for Robert Schimmel in something like 4 years. That's 4 years of getting on stage every chance I got and trying to write material that was funny and current. It gets old quick. When it came time to make a decision about comedy (which I loved then and still do), it became more about opportunity cost (as you put it) and lifestyle factors. My next move was to go out on the road and to be honest, that life just didn't appeal to me. Add in the stress of dealing with club managers, never having enough money, and circulating among other comics with various levels of personal disfunction and addiction issues and I opted for a "boring" life in tech.
Show business is a tough life and it's the rare individual who can make a go at it and find success enough to have a "normal" life. My observation has been that the stress of the performer career/lifestyle leads to substance abuse faster than almost any other career choice outside of high finance.
The next time you see a comedian performing in a comedy club, consider this: unless he's the headline act, he probably made something like $50-$75-$150 for his performances for the entire night depending on how long he was on stage. If that sounds good for 20 or 30 minutes of "work", figure out how much time was spent travelling and writing material before you do your final calculation. Nobody gets rich off of middle money.
I got started in standup about 10 years ago and went from doing 2-minutes at an open mic to MC at the DC Improv for Robert Schimmel in something like 4 years. That's 4 years of getting on stage every chance I got and trying to write material that was funny and current. It gets old quick. When it came time to make a decision about comedy (which I loved then and still do), it became more about opportunity cost (as you put it) and lifestyle factors. My next move was to go out on the road and to be honest, that life just didn't appeal to me. Add in the stress of dealing with club managers, never having enough money, and circulating among other comics with various levels of personal disfunction and addiction issues and I opted for a "boring" life in tech.
Show business is a tough life and it's the rare individual who can make a go at it and find success enough to have a "normal" life. My observation has been that the stress of the performer career/lifestyle leads to substance abuse faster than almost any other career choice outside of high finance.
The next time you see a comedian performing in a comedy club, consider this: unless he's the headline act, he probably made something like $50-$75-$150 for his performances for the entire night depending on how long he was on stage. If that sounds good for 20 or 30 minutes of "work", figure out how much time was spent travelling and writing material before you do your final calculation. Nobody gets rich off of middle money.
you forgot: taxes! :)
A little Googling led me here (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest...) which estimates he's worth about $6.5mm. Who knows if it's accurate.
The "It's Always Sunny" guys as a comparison (also FX) do quite well, despite being obscure. As Louis does more seasons, I suspect he'll also become quite wealthy -- he's the only real 'talent' on the show that he stars in, writes, and directs -- which brings his share of the proceeds up dramatically.
He's really a shrewd businessman, despite the jokes about being poor (which are based on his personal experiences, so I wouldn't call them dishonest).
The "It's Always Sunny" guys as a comparison (also FX) do quite well, despite being obscure. As Louis does more seasons, I suspect he'll also become quite wealthy -- he's the only real 'talent' on the show that he stars in, writes, and directs -- which brings his share of the proceeds up dramatically.
He's really a shrewd businessman, despite the jokes about being poor (which are based on his personal experiences, so I wouldn't call them dishonest).
> only real 'talent' on the show that he stars in, writes, and directs
And edits. In his AMA on reddit yesterday, he revealed[1] that he cuts Louie himself. In season one, there was a second person that helped him, but season two was apparently all him. He could be oversimplifying, and presumably other people at least watch his cut to smooth any rough edges, but it seemed like there was minimal involvement of others in the process.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/n9tef/hi_im_louis_ck_a...
And edits. In his AMA on reddit yesterday, he revealed[1] that he cuts Louie himself. In season one, there was a second person that helped him, but season two was apparently all him. He could be oversimplifying, and presumably other people at least watch his cut to smooth any rough edges, but it seemed like there was minimal involvement of others in the process.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/n9tef/hi_im_louis_ck_a...
He hasn't had this kind of exposure ever. A lot of people didn't know who he was until about a year ago. So I can imagine things are really starting to pick up. If he was struggling, he's not now.
I saw him over a year ago and he packed the Chicago Theater.
I saw him in 2008 and he packed the Vic.
He had an hour-long HBO special in 2007.
Lucky Louie was 2006. That's a top-billed HBO show built around Louis CK.
He's only just now getting "Dane Cook Famous", sure, but he's been spectacularly successful on the scale of "performing artists" for awhile now.
I saw him in 2008 and he packed the Vic.
He had an hour-long HBO special in 2007.
Lucky Louie was 2006. That's a top-billed HBO show built around Louis CK.
He's only just now getting "Dane Cook Famous", sure, but he's been spectacularly successful on the scale of "performing artists" for awhile now.
he's also done the opposite the "I don't even have 'no money'" routine.
When, and what was the bit?
Also: you've seen him live, right? How much did you pay for the tickets? Both times for me, the face was over $30, and both times the house was packed.
Do the math on how many shows he does. He tours constantly; a new one every year.
I don't think he's hurting. I think he's "only serious" when he jokes about having more money than everyone in the whole audience.
Also: you've seen him live, right? How much did you pay for the tickets? Both times for me, the face was over $30, and both times the house was packed.
Do the math on how many shows he does. He tours constantly; a new one every year.
I don't think he's hurting. I think he's "only serious" when he jokes about having more money than everyone in the whole audience.
That specific "no money" bit was a long time ago, way before you saw him and before his "Lucky Louie" show. So yes it's possible that at one point he had "no money." He's not the type of comedian that keeps doing a funny bit even if it isn't true.
I saw him on the most recent tour and he mentioned something about flying first class, and then apologized but assured the audience that he probably won't be doing that long, he'll mess it up lol
extreme paraphrasing, but I'm sure you all understand.
extreme paraphrasing, but I'm sure you all understand.
It's on the video he's selling now, he says he flies first class because he has more money than the audience, and that this has been going on for eight months and will only go on for another year.
being broke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0rSXjVuJVg
and if he were rich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9PwbtlOIU
These were a while ago.
and if he were rich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9PwbtlOIU
These were a while ago.
He also tried to buy a 22 million dollar house in Louie, and succeeded despite his accountant's insistence that he could not afford the $70,000 a month payment. So there you go. Both at the same time.
Succeeded? I don't think he did. He ended up just getting a different apartment I thought.
I understand where you're coming from, but we sometimes seem to forget that pretty much everything these guys say on stage is made-up material.
Of course, some might be based on fact, but let's not assume whatever he says happened to him did happen to him, or even happen at all!
Did you watch that interview about his "everything is amazing and nobody's happy" bit? He said that the bitchy guy "sitting next to him" in the plane was actually him!
Of course, some might be based on fact, but let's not assume whatever he says happened to him did happen to him, or even happen at all!
Did you watch that interview about his "everything is amazing and nobody's happy" bit? He said that the bitchy guy "sitting next to him" in the plane was actually him!
This whole subthread is based on "things Louis CK said". Regardless: it's doubtful, given how well his tours seem to do, than Louis CK is anything less than "pretty wealthy".
It's all relative, just like in the tech startup world. We all envy him. Meanwhile he envies Jerry Seinfeld.
(I use "envy" as hyperbole.)
(I use "envy" as hyperbole.)
From this statement by Louis CK: https://buy.louisck.net/statement
"Minus some money for PayPal charges etc, I have a profit around $200,000... This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show..."
If he can get over 200k for show, he may not be mega-rich by television celebrity standards, but he is doing pretty well for himself.
edit: to be clear, I don't begrudge him his success or think that he isn't entitled to sell his material for $5 a pop. I just think that making him out to be a starving artist is a mischaracterization.
"Minus some money for PayPal charges etc, I have a profit around $200,000... This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show..."
If he can get over 200k for show, he may not be mega-rich by television celebrity standards, but he is doing pretty well for himself.
edit: to be clear, I don't begrudge him his success or think that he isn't entitled to sell his material for $5 a pop. I just think that making him out to be a starving artist is a mischaracterization.
I've noticed this attitude as well. It's really, really annoying.
Annoying or not, as someone who only has a job because of copyright law, its fucking really important that we're reaching these people. I'm glad that people are saying this. Its great if you can afford to support artists all the time, but a lot of people can't or don't. This shows that people are willing to pay, but only for a product that they want.
Piracy is one thing, but a matter of practicality is another. I never pirate, but other than cable TV and netflix I hardly buy any copywritten works. When I do buy something that is copywritten I do it explicitly to support the person making the art. Its good material, at good price, without DRM, yes fucking please, I like that, want to support that and is finally on terms that I can support that.
I don't care if you want to scoff at people living up to what you consider their obligations after pirating, it is a big deal to the pirate that they paid money, and its should be a big deal to the entertainment industries. Someone who steals and steals and steals but buys this special is voting with their wallet, we need to pay attention to this demographic. If they'll support Louis C. K., who else do they would support if we offered a good product at a good price? We can never get ALL the pirates to come over to the paying side, but given the way we currently enforce copyright, we could convert a good number of them into paying customers.
Annoying or not, as someone who only has a job because of copyright law, its fucking really important that we're reaching these people. I'm glad that people are saying this. Its great if you can afford to support artists all the time, but a lot of people can't or don't. This shows that people are willing to pay, but only for a product that they want.
Piracy is one thing, but a matter of practicality is another. I never pirate, but other than cable TV and netflix I hardly buy any copywritten works. When I do buy something that is copywritten I do it explicitly to support the person making the art. Its good material, at good price, without DRM, yes fucking please, I like that, want to support that and is finally on terms that I can support that.
I don't care if you want to scoff at people living up to what you consider their obligations after pirating, it is a big deal to the pirate that they paid money, and its should be a big deal to the entertainment industries. Someone who steals and steals and steals but buys this special is voting with their wallet, we need to pay attention to this demographic. If they'll support Louis C. K., who else do they would support if we offered a good product at a good price? We can never get ALL the pirates to come over to the paying side, but given the way we currently enforce copyright, we could convert a good number of them into paying customers.
Nah, there's no way this is true. He has a Leica MP: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Dc4zH72...), a 50mm Summilux, and a 35mm ASPH summicron.
The MP is $5000, the 50mm is $3700 and the 35mm is $3000.
Edit: Damn it, no markdown!?
The MP is $5000, the 50mm is $3700 and the 35mm is $3000.
Edit: Damn it, no markdown!?
Neither is a house or a savings account. I know quite a few students with no savings and SLR cameras.
Wow, everything about HN really is the opposite of Reddit.
I know. HN is so cool. And people here never point that out, unlike that lame circle-jerk Reddit.
I assumed it was sarcastic, since posting about Louis CK all the time for the past 5 years is sort of Reddit's thing.
Also, I was kind of upset by the "letter" that the person who uploaded the torrent wrote. "Art is meant to be shared"? Why bother justifying it with something that sounds stupid when you could just say nothing or say, "I thought people might want to get it this way, so here it is". Depressing.
And finally, I never realized that Louis C.K. was so mainstream. I thought his humor appealed to me and maybe three other people. Oh well :)