Just Give It Away

[Elias Graves]

Here's the gist of a casual conversation I had recently about making money with music...give it away for free.

 

That sounds like an oxymoron, but hear the rest. We were talking from the basis that making money from the actual sale of music is increasingly difficult. You all know the reasons so I won't bother rehashing them here.

 

We stipulated that music sales are not a mneymaker. From that point, we discussed how successful bands make money. The two biggest revenue streams that occurred to us were merchandise sales and concert revenue.

 

Merchandising has become a bigger part of the business for some bands than others. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is Jimmy Buffet. That guy has become a franchise in his own right. In order to make that sort of thing happen, a band has to develop an identity, a brand and must be symbolic of a lifestyle. Jimmy has capitalized on the whole beach bum life that appeals to many, from those stuck in landlocked areas to those wo actually live the life.

 

So, if a new band were to give the music away as MP3 to develop a fan base, then use branding and marketing to build merchandise sales, could you buil a money making enterprise?

 

It would take a lot of work to build a brand. Really good marketing would be your main tool rather than more traditional avenues. This was all speculation and random discussion, but I would like to hear other views on this.

 

EG

[Dthraco]

Both of my previous bands that were fairly well known locally did this. I hired a logo designer and we made shirts, stickers, and CD's.

 

It takes time though. You don't really get known until you are around for at least 2 years.

[Elias Graves]

Yeah, it seems like ths would have to be a long term strategy.

 

EG

[richardmac]

 

So, if a new band were to give the music away as MP3 to develop a fan base, then use branding and marketing to build merchandise sales, could you buil a money making enterprise? It would take a lot of work to build a brand. Really good marketing would be your main tool rather than more traditional avenues. This was all speculation and random discussion, but I would like to hear other views on this. EG

 

 

It's an interesting idea. In Buffet's case, he's marketing the lifestyle, you're right. But would this work for the Joe Sixpack Band? I highly doubt it. The band would need to do more than just give their music away - they'd need hits. Giving your music away is nothing. Thousands of musicians do it on the net every day. If you write some mediocre songs, give away thousands of copies, and pay for TV and magazine ads... I don't think it would work. The music would have to be really good or really catchy or really stand out somehow. Obviously Buffet would not be a brand if his music hadn't had such mass appeal.

 

The reverse might work. If you had a product you wanted to sell, and you made music to go with the product and gave the music away for free... If you invented a new type of instrument, and you made a CD with it and the music sounded different, you could give the music away and it might increase instrument sales.

 

Another idea is to go the KISS route. Not wear makeup and do the bombs and stuff, but put on a stage show that is totally different than everyone else. Like that one weird guy that has people in costumes and uses puppets (I kid you not) and stuff. I can't remember his name. Dr. something or other. But you put on a show that is a real experience, not just guys playing instruments. You'd sell more CD's, and WAY more merchandise. I am surprised I don't see this more. I'd do it if I wasn't a middle aged guy with a wife, two kids, a dog, a mortgage, and not a lot of free time.

 

I wish I could remember that guy's name.

[scud133]

4SnUij-8nnc

[Elias Graves]

Joe Sixpack Band might have a tough road. I think in order for this technique to work, one would need exceptional music that celebrated a lifestyle. Another rock n roll band couldn't do it. In order to appeal to a lifestyle, one would be compelled to market to a group that has a strong self identity. Whether that's beach bums, country folk or otherwise, going after suburbanites who don't really identify strongly with any particular group likely wouldn't do it.

 

EG

[MaxKincaide]

Giving away music is not the answer...in fact, it only helps to spread the problem.

 

When people say they don't make the majority of their money from music sales, they are comparing that to merch and ticket sales. That's after a band has been around a while, though, I'm sure.

 

For a band that is just starting up, music sales can account for the majority of their profit. That was the case with our band. All of the bands in our area have adopted the pay-to-play mentality, so it makes it very difficult to get paid to play any shows or venues at all. The few shows we got to play that were not "charity" type shows, we made just enough to pay for a semi-decent sounding EP to be recorded. It was better than anything we could have done ourselves and expect anyone to actually listen to.

 

Once we did that, we pressed the CD's through Kunaki, paid 1.25 per CD, and then sold them for $5 each. We couldn't afford to pay for any kind of merch at that point, so we had to rely on the money from the CD sales and payment from the few shows that we could get paid to play.

 

Granted, had the pay-to-play thing not happened, we probably would have done somewhat better getting paid for the shows, but we still would have needed the money from CD sales to afford to do much else.

 

Giving away music is the same, to me, as the pay-to-play issue. It's not going to solve anything if everyone just gave away their music...not to mention that it would seriously damage the record labels that sign the bands in the first place.

 

Now, I understand that the labels are usually not very fair in regard to the percentage that they give the band for music sales in their contracts...but just think how much worse things would get if that number were cut out. There would almost be no point in signing to a label at that point...the label would have to start taking higher percentages from ticket and merch sales from the band, significantly decreasing the amount of profit for both the label and the artist.

 

The main thing a label does for a band is promotion. They have the funds and reputation to promote a band far beyond what a band can afford to do on their own...in most cases. There are DIY bands that are quite successful, but they just won't have the same kind of connections or promoting power that a label will have.

 

The whole reason they pay to promote a band is to invest in their popularity...that's how they make their money, and that's how the artist makes their money. The harder a band is promoted, the more people hear (and hopefully like) the band, the more CD's, merch, and tickets are sold, so everyone wins...mainly the label, granted, but if the band is good and promoted well enough, they certainly won't be hurting for money either.

 

Take away the music sales from that equation, and it's like removing the bottom Jenga block from an already leaning tower. It's all going to come crashing down...how long that takes depends on the selling power of the artists under the labels.

 

That money may not, to some bands at least, make up a large portion of their profit, but it's still necessary none-the-less.

 

We need to start thinking outside the box for a solution to help the music sales recover from filesharing. iTunes is a great concept, and one that I hope catches on more and more, until it's no longer an issue.

 

Giving away something you work hard to create to use to sell yourself is definitely NOT the answer.

[BlueStrat]

 

Merchandising has become a bigger part of the business for some bands than others. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is Jimmy Buffet. That guy has become a franchise in his own right. In order to make that sort of thing happen, a band has to develop an identity, a brand and must be symbolic of a lifestyle. Jimmy has capitalized on the whole beach bum life that appeals to many, from those stuck in landlocked areas to those wo actually live the life.

 

 

True. But Jimmy Buffet only was able to sell ancillary products like books and clothes and God knows what else because, as Rich pointed out, he already had hit records.

[slight-return]

I think most people forget that a lot of Buffet's success has to do with his movie-related deals

 

nX1Nh6c80wo

[Elias Graves]

In regard to the post about this only making the problem worse:

 

It seems that the horse is already out of the barn on that issue. We will not return to a day of labels and promotes being the arbiters of success. While they were, and still are to some extent, responsible in large part for the success of many acts as a result of their marketing machine, the days of them taking risks on bands has long passed. Today, they seem to only be interested in proven formulae that they know will generate revenue.

 

This does two things. First, it seals their fate. By rehashing the same old material, more and more listeners lose faith in their "word" that this new act is "the one." It diminishes their status by degrees. Second, it kills whatever slim chance a truly innovative act might have since they don't fit "the model."

 

It appears to me that the business side of the music business is in a serious in between state right now, awaiting someone to define the new model. Itunes probably has a big jump on everyone, however, something else may happen as well.

 

This was all merely a mental exercise in exploring the future of making money with music. With the ability for the actual product to be copied and shared at will, acts may be forced to be more creative in their approach. This was one possible approach that occurred to me. I'm sure there are others.

 

Like to hear other ideas.

 

EG

[richardmac]

I agree that we need to discuss all options.

 

One of the options that we need to think about is this; it is entirely possible that NO new system will replace what we have now. That there's no great commercial venture around the corner that will be the magic bullet.

 

Maybe nothing changes. Maybe record companies stick around, much like they are now, maybe a little smaller, but doing the same thing. We see CD sales shrinking by 25% each year, but maybe things bottom out and stay there.

 

Maybe we just need to just stare down the facts:

 

1. No new technology will suddenly come along and make people buy more music.

2. Record companies are not the answer.

3. The market is oversaturated and you're most likely not going to make a bunch of money selling music.

4. Touring is not going to make you a lot of money in most cases.

5. The odds of supporting yourself full time as an original artist have never been worse.

6. People listen to more music than ever before, but value it less.

7. It is only possible (for most people) to make a living as a musician if you are willing to teach lessons, sell gear, play in a few bands, and so on.

8. The only way to disregard all 7 items above is to write exceptionally great music, and the vast majority of people can't do that.

 

I pretty much believe those 8 points. I think it's still possible to sell a ton of music, but I strongly believe in #8. I think the best thing any songwriter can do is to write better songs. Keep learning, keep practicing, keep exploring new ideas, keep writing. Odds are it won't matter, and you're not going to make a ton of cash, but at least you'll be writing the best songs you can.

 

We need to write songs that blow people away. I think that if we haven't done that, the rest of it doesn't matter, given today's market.

[Elias Graves]

And there's the trick. Content. Although there are as many bands out there as ever, very few strike me as very GOOD when it comes to songwriting.

 

Country music has become nothing but tractor songs and a nostalgia tune. Rock n roll is, well I have no idea. Emo? Who wants to hear people whine? Anger wears thin.

 

Songwriters, it seems, have forgotten what makes a great song.

 

EG

[Poker99]

Music is as good now as it ever was. Not just the mainstream one.

[pythagos]

 

It seems that the horse is already out of the barn on that issue. We will not return to a day of labels and promotes being the arbiters of success. While they were, and still are to some extent, responsible in large part for the success of many acts as a result of their marketing machine, the days of them taking risks on bands has long passed. Today, they seem to only be interested in proven formulae that they know will generate revenue. This does two things. First, it seals their fate. By rehashing the same old material, more and more listeners lose faith in their "word" that this new act is "the one." It diminishes their status by degrees. Second, it kills whatever slim chance a truly innovative act might have since they don't fit "the model." EG

 

+1

 

This makes me think that the record labels in many ways hurt the current state of music.

 

The hang-up with 'give it away' though is that the super star celebrity musician is completely wiped out with that approach (With the very very rare exception). IMO, I think that this is okay. Making a decent living by teaching, playing, and maybe even contracting for specific purposes would be the successful musicians fate. If its something you love, than that sounds okay to me.

[Elias Graves]

I like the superstar musician if the title is deserved. Part of the music industy's problem lies in their waning credibility. Too many times have they foisted "the next big thing" through the machine. It works for a while until the public realizes they are being fed another talenless lipsynching hack.

 

Ater enough rounds of that, the public no longer believes the labels when they hold out another version of the same thing.

 

The truth on the matter is that someone somewhere will come up with a truly great idea that will change everything. Any situation in as much a state of flux as the music business is right now is ripe for revolution.

 

EG

[richardmac]

 

The truth on the matter is that someone somewhere will come up with a truly great idea that will change everything. Any situation in as much a state of flux as the music business is right now is ripe for revolution.

 

 

I thought that too, but as the years go by, I begin to doubt it. There are hundreds of thousands of bands online and I don't see that changing. More and more acts in the future are likely to give away their music for free. And the current trends will probably continue - music radio audiences will decrease, CD sales will decrease, online sales will increase, illegal downloading will increase. The number of bands willing to play for free will increase and pay for live music will continue to decrease.

 

At some point the whole thing reaches critical mass. THEN what happens? I dunno. I just don't see a magical solution swooping out of the sky.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong.

[BlueStrat]

At the risk of sounding like as skipping CD:

 

Nothing will happen until the producers regain control of distribution. Whatever form it takes, be it digital or hard copy or something else, as long as anything anybody produces can be given away by the millions by anyone else, the music business will continue it's downward spiral to utter valuelessness.

[Elias Graves]

So then it kind of comes down to two camps, then. Those who wish to be professionals and those who are content to give it away just to get noticed.

 

Many of those in the latter position likely want to be pros, but get stuck when they start giving it away. The cycle. So as long as people are willing to do it for free, there's no incentive to pay for it. The only thing that would break that cycle would be for listeners to demand better quality material.

 

It is a sticky situation.

 

Here's a dumb question. Can't music files be encoded with anti-copy code? I don't know anything about that side of things, but it seems like it could be done. Isn't this done with movies and software?

 

EG

[rhino55]

 

I agree that we need to discuss all options. One of the options that we need to think about is this; it is entirely possible that NO new system will replace what we have now. That there's no great commercial venture around the corner that will be the magic bullet. Maybe nothing changes. Maybe record companies stick around, much like they are now, maybe a little smaller, but doing the same thing. We see CD sales shrinking by 25% each year, but maybe things bottom out and stay there. Maybe we just need to just stare down the facts: 1. No new technology will suddenly come along and make people buy more music. 2. Record companies are not the answer. 3. The market is oversaturated and you're most likely not going to make a bunch of money selling music. 4. Touring is not going to make you a lot of money in most cases. 5. The odds of supporting yourself full time as an original artist have never been worse. 6. People listen to more music than ever before, but value it less. 7. It is only possible (for most people) to make a living as a musician if you are willing to teach lessons, sell gear, play in a few bands, and so on. 8. The only way to disregard all 7 items above is to write exceptionally great music, and the vast majority of people can't do that. I pretty much believe those 8 points. I think it's still possible to sell a ton of music, but I strongly believe in #8. I think the best thing any songwriter can do is to write better songs. Keep learning, keep practicing, keep exploring new ideas, keep writing. Odds are it won't matter, and you're not going to make a ton of cash, but at least you'll be writing the best songs you can. We need to write songs that blow people away. I think that if we haven't done that, the rest of it doesn't matter, given today's market.

 

 

great post

[AwayEam]

 

Here's a dumb question. Can't music files be encoded with anti-copy code? I don't know anything about that side of things, but it seems like it could be done. Isn't this done with movies and software?

 

 

HEY BRO

 

If that was a dumb question, publishers wouldn't drop so much cash money on it.

 

It is mathematically impossible to prevent copying of the data. If it's encrypted, the decryption key has to be present somewhere in the path from the source data to the user's speakers/monitor.

 

Generally, this path is entirely under control of the user (their computer), so they can just fish out the key and reproduce the unencrypted material.

 

However, publishers can, and try their best to make the decryption process a pain in the ass. This is what DRM is all about.

 

In short, as long as the material comes out your screen/speakers, you can *theoretically* copy it, but publishers will try to make it a pain in the ass to do so.

[doppelbanger]

i really think that the music industry f'd up when they let used record stores take off. obviously they couldn't do too much about it but they could have lowered prices on new cd's enough to make used record stores unprofitable. the main point is no cd is worth paying $17.99 new at fyi. my point is that the record industry had two feet. they shot themselves in the left foot by greed and overcharging for cd's, thus giving rise to the dominance of used record stores both local and chain. they then shot themselves in the right foot by being dicks about the whole downloading thing starting with napster. actually they just shot half of their right foot; itunes is single handedly saving them from their bad decisions. if the record companies didn't have an overpriced monopoly over this industry and had actually looked into providing the consumer what they wanted at a price they were willing to pay, then online downloading could have been just a hickup.

[richardmac]

 

So then it kind of comes down to two camps, then. Those who wish to be professionals and those who are content to give it away just to get noticed. Many of those in the latter position likely want to be pros, but get stuck when they start giving it away. The cycle. So as long as people are willing to do it for free, there's no incentive to pay for it. The only thing that would break that cycle would be for listeners to demand better quality material.

 

 

I've got a similar but different take. There are definitely amateurs and professionals, and the pros don't give it away for free. But some of the amateurs do and some don't. And the decision to give away their music is often arrived at via different arguments.

 

In some cases, they just want to be noticed, and they figure after they build a following, they can start charging. This approach "can" work, but 99% of the time it probably doesn't work.

 

In some other cases, the amateur has tried selling their music and been unsuccessful. And after several months or years of futility, they decide to say "the hell with it" and they give their music away, because they'd rather have a large amount of "make believe" fans rather than a small collection of "true" fans.

 

If fans mean everything and money means nothing, as is the case with many folks who have a full time job and dabble in music, then the second argument can be extremely convincing. But those fans are fool's gold.

 

When I was a member of MacJams (a web site where amateurs share their music,) I had at one point the number one and the number three rated pop/rock songs on their charts, and thousands of downloads. How did this translate to full CD sales? It didn't. They were make believe fans. I'd get messages about how much they loved my songs, but apparently they only loved them as free downloads. Buying the whole CD was not going to happen. I decided to bolt. I came to the conclusion, and this has been reinforced here by vet musicians like BlueStrat, that true fans, ie the ones that actually value what you do (and will buy your music) are what I really need to focus on.

 

I think there's a line in the sand, really. If you just want to have your ego stroked, give it away for free. You'll get downloads no matter how good or bad you are. In education we talk about "authentic audiences." For a student, an authentic audience would be his classmates, his school mates. Not just his Grandma who will love anything he does. Songwriters have to choose which side of the line to be on.

 

There is a caveat, of course - nowadays, the practice of giving away a song or two from your CD as a marketing tool is extremely widespread and I don't see it as a bad thing.

[richardmac]

 

i really think that the music industry f'd up when they let used record stores take off. obviously they couldn't do too much about it but they could have lowered prices on new cd's enough to make used record stores unprofitable. the main point is no cd is worth paying $17.99 new at fyi. my point is that the record industry had two feet. they shot themselves in the left foot by greed and overcharging for cd's, thus giving rise to the dominance of used record stores both local and chain. they then shot themselves in the right foot by being dicks about the whole downloading thing starting with napster. actually they just shot half of their right foot; itunes is single handedly saving them from their bad decisions. if the record companies didn't have an overpriced monopoly over this industry and had actually looked into providing the consumer what they wanted at a price they were willing to pay, then online downloading could have been just a hickup.

 

 

New CD's are waaaay too expensive - you're right. That's been a topic hashed out a kabillion times in other threads here. Places like WalMart are basically dictating to the record companies that the majority of CD's be 10 bucks or less.

[doppelbanger]

 

New CD's are waaaay too expensive - you're right. That's been a topic hashed out a kabillion times in other threads here. Places like WalMart are basically dictating to the record companies that the majority of CD's be 10 bucks or less.

 

 

As much as I loathe WalMart, this is true. They are showing other companies how it's going to be. The "suits" who fear change are going to continue watching their companies crumble. This latest info about GM is exactly what I'm talking about. While many of the Asian car companies listened to their customers and gave their customers what they want ie quality vehicles at a lower price, more features on low end vehicles, "hybrids", the American car companies took way too long to catch on to these trends.

[Bernicegreen]

The CD as medium to transfer music is way to expensive now-a-days. As the cost of replication, distribution and store space all have taken into account. CD's as a medium have for that reason a hard time to compete against on-line music. It is that CD's come handy with a lot of equipment and because of the lazyness of many customers that it still excists. So customers who want convinience have to pay for it.

If you want to do it the cheap way, buy the music online.