Your music is not your product

[Poker99]

 

News Flash: Your Music Is Not Your Product This post is by singer / songwriter Jeff Macdougall (@jeffmacdougall). I'm tired. I'm tired of having the same conversation over and over again. The conversation about how we should go about dealing with "thieves" and "pirates" "stealing" our "product" like so many shoplifters. I'm just gonna say it. It's absurd. Music is not, and never was, a product. When a label executive tells you that they are "not in the business of selling discs", (or vinyl, tape, t-shirts, etc.) and that they are actually "selling music," they are, at best, fooling themselves, or at worst, lying to your face. Moving plastic, vinyl, paper and/or any other tangible good they can dream up is exactly what the recording industry has been about since it was established. Sure, the labels spend money and time trying to infuse their products (CDs, posters, etc.) with content (music, album art, etc.) to raise its intrinsic value, but it's still the CD or poster that they are/were selling... not the music itself. Still, I'm always shocked at how very few people (and these are music professionals we're talking about) seem to understand such an obvious point. This attitude is not that surprising coming from the recording side of the music industry. After all, if the premise that "music is an actual thing" were true, then there would be hope of putting the derailed train back on its proverbial track and everyone could get back to doing business as usual. So for the RIAA and the majors to frame the problem this way makes a certain amount of sense (at least, initially). But digital music is not real. (I'm going to write that again so that everyone understands that I didn't make a typo.) Digital music is not real. The experience of hearing it is real, true. But the music itself isn't real. It's an audio hologram. In any other market, if a player in a space (or even an entire section of an industry) takes a poor position by believing something is false when really the opposite is true (or vice-versa), the market simply corrects their behavior by allowing the competition to win out, forcing them to adjust if they want to stay in the game -- but not the recording industry. Which begs the question... Why? I blame you. Yes, you (my fellow musician/label/songwriter/PRO/music business professional) have made things worse by buying into this inept idea -- hook, line and sinker. By choosing to believe, whole-heartedly, that "music is a product" and anyone who hears it without permission (i.e. file sharing, YouTube, hearing it on a radio station or podcast where it hasn't been sanctioned, etc.) is stealing, you've empowered the entire industry to take us all down the drain. And while copyright law has been pushed and stretched over the years to legally say that such an act is indeed "theft", no right-minded consumer is going to buy into that load of crap. Ever. Some say, "So what? Copyright is in our favor and 'the law is the law.' Sooner or later, we will come up with a format that will have enough added value and people will "buy." But guess what... They won't. Generally speaking, people don't want to buy music. And here's the ass-kicker... they never did. True fans, audiophiles and collectors buy CDs and other merch. They always have and that's not going to change. But for everyone else, it's really about 'time-shifting.' Most consumers bought and still buy music so they can time-shift it (play it back when, where and how they want). I don't just mean now that everything is digital either. That's why the average music listener has always purchased music - not because they wanted ownership but because buying an album or CD was the only way to time-shift their musical experience. The days of consumers purchasing music, en masse, are gone. I'm here to tell you that the emperor is naked, to ask -- no beg -- you to change how we view our work. To view our work, our music, for what it really is... an experience. Almost all experiences that we can and do pay for (an amusement park ride, a massage, etc.) are viewed as a service. We need to view our work in the same way. To be clear, I'm not saying we need to stop trying to sell digital downloads or that we all need to start our own subscription service. There isn't going to be one way to make your money and every artist's recipe for success will be different. What I'm saying is that it's time we stop framing this problem around IP and ownership and start framing it around listener experience and satisfaction. We need to get honest with our fans – and ourselves. We need to start looking at music as it really is, an experience NOT a product. Only then will we find the solutions for which we are so desperately seeking. - Jeff MacDougall -- Editor's note: Calm down, breathe, and then comment. Intelligently. Please. Jeff is very active in the Hypebot community and will reply to questions and critism

 

 

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/02/news-flash-your-music-is-not-your-product.html#tp

[daddymack]

I hope Mr. MacDougall has a day job.

[Matximus]

Yeah... not sure what his point was. Music can be a product ... or a service. When it's sold on a disc, it's a product. When its performed, it's a service. I don't think there's any kinda controversy here or anything. The brand is the identity of the performer, which is used to market a recording or performance.

 

Most working musicians view what they do as a service. Only a lucky few ever really made money selling records. What's changed is that lucky few has gotten smaller and the amount of money they could make has gotten smaller too.

[sventvkg]

Oh Christ Poker..Get ready for the deluge!!!!! I have been saying exactly this same thing for years and most fellow musicians DO NOT WANT TO HEAR IT, to the point of ripping that idea. But this guy is of course right.

[BlueStrat]

Well, I think the guy's more full of {censored} than a nest full of baby owls.

[dparr]

I make money off of my music so therefore it is "my product".

 

 

The guy must not be able to sell his product.

[Cliftonb]

I think he's talking more about what people like the OFWGKTA kids have done recently.

[sventvkg]

It's more about how you perceive your music...And he's right, I think. I get his meaning.

[mikedavid00]

I agree with him of course. I am in the urban world so all our music is free already. Just today an artist in the UK released a masterpiece album. All free.

 

If anyone happens to be interested in Urban, here's where we all get our music for free. Might be the future of what is to come who knows. http://www.datpiff.com/

 

Independent artists realistically aren't going to make much selling music online. You are just preventing potential fans. My big issue is the monopoly on the air waves.

[BlueStrat]

 

You are just preventing potential fans

 

 

Do you really think people place value on something that costs them nothing? See, for me, that's been the emperor with no clothes: the idea that fans are created by giving away music for free. Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I can go find tons of music for free, but you want to know why it's free? because most of it is stuff that no one would ever buy anyway. I said it before, I'll say it again: the music industry is scratching it's ass trying to figure out a way to earn money for it's participants, they're feeling around in the dark for some workable method, and 'free' has been nothing but a desperate Hail Mary pass by those who have nothing to lose otherwise. The unintended consequences of it are enormous, and perhaps irreversible, but 'free' is not a marketing plan, and then proclaiming that 'well, your music was never really a product anyway" is just idiotic dumbing down of business and reeks of throwing in the towel. Is it the new reality? Obviously so, but that doesn't make it good for anybody. It's a bit like deciding that since so many kids in school can't read anymore, let's just agree that grades are irrelevant and that reading has never been important anyway, and the new criteria for academic success will be how well the student is liked.

[Poker99]

 

Well, I think the guy's more full of {censored} than a nest full of baby owls.

 

 

Me too!

[richardmac]

 

Do you really think people place value on something that costs them nothing? See, for me, that's been the emperor with no clothes: the idea that fans are created by giving away music for free. Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I can go find tons of music for free, but you want to know why it's free? because most of it is stuff that no one would ever buy anyway. I said it before, I'll say it again: the music industry is scratching it's ass trying to figure out a way to earn money for it's participants, they're feeling around in the dark for some workable method, and 'free' has been nothing but a desperate Hail Mary pass by those who have nothing to lose otherwise. The unintended consequences of it are enormous, and perhaps irreversible, but 'free' is not a marketing plan, and then proclaiming that 'well, your music was never really a product anyway" is just idiotic dumbing down of business and reeks of throwing in the towel. Is it the new reality? Obviously so, but that doesn't make it good for anybody. It's a bit like deciding that since so many kids in school can't read anymore, let's just agree that grades are irrelevant and that reading has never been important anyway, and the new criteria for academic success will be how well the student is liked.

 

 

I don't think it's a Hail Mary. I think they're trying to apply new economic models to the music biz with not a whole lot of success. World of Warcraft has like 90% of their users playing their online game for free. The remaining 10% pay for advanced features and abilities, and because they have kabillions of people playing the game, 10% turns out to be a ton of cash. (Those aren't the actual real stats because I'm too lazy to look up the real figures, but you get the point.)

 

There are other models where as few as 5% of the users pay something, and because the numbers are so high, it works. The problem when trying to apply this to the music biz is that it is very difficult to get a kabillion followers/users/whatever. This model of free works just fine... as long as you have a ton of people.

 

So in theory if you could get 100,000 people to dig your music, you can convert some of them to paying customers. The problem is that it ain't so easy to get 100,000 people to listen to your music, even if you give it away.

[BlueStrat]

 

So in theory if you could get 100,000 people to dig your music, you can convert some of them to paying customers. The problem is that it ain't so easy to get 100,000 people to listen to your music, even if you give it away.

 

And the more people give it away, the harder it s to get listeners.

 

I get what you're saying about WoW. But imagine 1,000 new video games every day being offered online for free. WoW is doing fine, but the new guys? not so much. In that regard, it is a Hail Mary on the part of the new guys, who end up with a product few want to buy and because of the sheer volume of free stuff, can't even give it away.

[Eddie]

...Generally speaking, people don't want to buy music. And here's the ass-kicker... they never did....

 

Someone forgot to tell that to Apple

[richardmac]

There's another way to look at it. It might be a viable strategy for large labels, but not for little guys. This is how it works in China - the "record companies" in China sell music, but 95% of the music sold in China are illegal knockoffs and they have given up trying to stop it. So the record companies are doing what we'd call a 360 deal. They advertise and promote the artist, which causes them to get popular, which causes widespread bootlegging, which causes them to get MORE popular. They record artists very very cheaply, and they also videotape everything and it all becomes promo material. They make their money by getting the artist on radio, tv, concert appearances, and so on. There's not a lot of money to be made, but they are lean and mean and keep costs as low as possible. Unfortunately for their artists, they have to do a lot of shows and it's a strain on their vocal chords. And they don't make a lot of money. But that is a model.

 

Now... how much of that idea could work here? We're a very different country. But if anyone could get free music distributed to the masses, it'd have to be someone with deep pockets who could pull off the 360 type arrangement. Could it be done? Who knows. Maybe. But it would depend on the type of music.

 

We sell a product that can be duplicated and shared for free. The majors are having the same issues that newspapers are having, and they're going to go the same way that many newspapers have gone. If your model isn't working, go out of business or find a new model. That's why I don't like the Hail Mary analogy, because what people are trying to do is find a new model. We've got people making craploads of dollars off of selling imaginary land that doesn't exist (Second Life.) People love music and are listening to more than ever before. To sit around stubbornly and continue to do things the old way, like the majors are doing, selling a product that can be copied and shared for free in unlimited fashion is just bad business. They're going down, down in an earlier round. Sorry, couldn't help it.

 

But one thing that is said a LOT and that I agree with is the idea that for a new and/or unknown artist, illegal music sharing is not their biggest problem... their biggest problem is getting people to listen to them. Getting noticed. And the best way to get noticed is not to press a bunch of CD's and fail to sell them. The best way is to get out in front of as many people as possible. In person, that means playing as many gigs as you can. Online, it means streaming everything, and perhaps giving away some or all of your music.

 

And yeah, this is the same crap we've been debating here for the past 4 years. And I don't practice what I'm suggesting because I'm not convinced it's correct... I'm not that firm in my opinions on this. I stream everything for free and sell music online for half the price of iTunes.

[sventvkg]

 

And the more people give it away, the harder it s to get listeners. I get what you're saying about WoW. But imagine 1,000 new video games every day being offered online for free. WoW is doing fine, but the new guys? not so much. In that regard, it is a Hail Mary on the part of the new guys, who end up with a product few want to buy and because of the sheer volume of free stuff, can't even give it away.

 

 

I don't know man but i'm inclined to think the only place you're going to get people to buy your music in the future is at gigs where people will make emotional purchases and true fans will want to help support you. We'll be adding value to their purchases as opposed to just listening or downloading in low quality. Adding, extra art, vinyl, 24/96K, FLAC, Multitrack, and other packages will add value and entice a small percentage of true believers to spend some cash as well. Giving away low quality or having your music stream on Spotify, bandcamp, LAst FM, Grooveshark or myspace is really just advertizing. If you can get them intrigued, get them to a show, then convert them into a fan, that's where it's going to be at in the future.

[trmckenz]

i agree with this last statement ^^

 

there is still an untapped resource... the internet. it's mostly thought of as distribution and it is so much more than that. and i think people need to stop thinking of the music as it being what makes the money, or even what drives the money making. the music can create demand, can create emotions, can sonically express the people in the band. but to be successful (defined in many ways) what needs to be sold is the live experience, the merchandise, the online portal... the value is in the deeper connection of the listener and the brand.

 

what is going to be "worth" something is a service. the live performance, music production, some skill that cannot be easily duplicated.

 

how does Google make their money? Advertising. How do networks make their money? Advertising.

 

in my mind the key is simple- create demand. innovation of creating demand makes all the difference.

[BlueStrat]

 

i agree with this last statement ^^ there is still an untapped resource... the internet. it's mostly thought of as distribution and it is so much more than that. and i think people need to stop thinking of the music as it being what makes the money, or even what drives the money making. the music can create demand, can create emotions, can sonically express the people in the band. but to be successful (defined in many ways) what needs to be sold is the live experience, the merchandise, the online portal... the value is in the deeper connection of the listener and the brand. what is going to be "worth" something is a service. the live performance, music production, some skill that cannot be easily duplicated. how does Google make their money? Advertising. How do networks make their money? Advertising. in my mind the key is simple- create demand. innovation of creating demand makes all the difference.

 

 

Sure, but the fact is, there aren't 500,000 versions of Google online to wade through; there aren't 50,000 networks. But there are that many and more of guys all trying to sell music. Not even sell, just get listeners. Well, here's a great example from another forum of the point I was making earlier:

 

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?2750760-So-I-m-in-Vegas.....

 

Said it before, I'll say it again: the internet has failed as a delivery system for all but a handful of unknown musicians. It's the emperor with no clothes. And it's getting worse as time goes by.

[sventvkg]

I don't know about you Put I can't think of any artists I have discovered by "trusted filters" such as radio...I hear about artists through friends, family other artists, web, articles, etc..and just word of mouth buzz on a scene. So you don't have to be visible in a $5 Million dollar marketing campaign way. If you're good, start playing and try to get the word out with today's communication and social networking WORD WILL SPREAD. People WANT to talk about what they think is great.

[Cliftonb]

 

I don't know about you Put I can't think of any artists I have discovered by "trusted filters" such as radio...I hear about artists through friends, family other artists, web, articles, etc..and just word of mouth buzz on a scene. So you don't have to be visible in a $5 Million dollar marketing campaign way. If you're good, start playing and try to get the word out with today's communication and social networking WORD WILL SPREAD. People WANT to talk about what they think is great.

 

 

Quoted For Truth

[trmckenz]

yeah my band is new and taking a stance that we don't need a record label, we need a business. 100% profits, 100% creative control. we are designing our website now that will encompass a money maker (fingers crossed) in addition to our band's store, etc. we've been really lucky to have some startup capital. to me its more about the brand than the actual band.

 

check this:

 

 

my point is, you gotta start somewhere, so here we go. yes, it's gonna be tough and take more time and money than i probably realize, but i'd love to "stick it to the man" and wave to the labels as i pass them on the way to the bank.

[mikedavid00]

 

Do you really think people place value on something that costs them nothing?

 

 

Yes they do.

 

I should know because I rarely pay for music. I am in Urban and my music is for free. I have lots of songs that I value a lot. I download 100-200 free albums a year and have about 6-7 artists that I really like. They new albums come out daily.

 

Here's an example. I wanted to listen to some of YOUR music so I can write a review. I was going to download your album, put it on my iPhone, go out shopping and run errands tomorrow and listen to your album a couple of times. I checked you out, found out that you didn't have stuff free for download, and then passed. That is a real world example.

 

This urban artist in the UK who I'm friends with on Twitter paid for a bunch of UK 'more known' UK artists to be on her album. She got it professionally vocal mixed by real engineers (no offense to the urban engineers). Since her mum funded the album pretty much (remember we're talking about a 20 year old living in her bedroom), she decided that she wanted to sell it for $2 so she could make her money back. She used Bandcamp for this. She thought in her own mind that she was going to make all this money from the album. Well you know the rest of the story. All the work and effort and promotion went down the drain.

 

An album isn't good if no one here's it. And yours I wasn't able to hear. You prevented me from your music. A potential fan that could have went out and saw your live show.

 

My rule of thumb, if you are in independent artist, always, always give your music out for free online (UNLESS you are at live shows. Then you can sell CD's of course as people put them in the car and still want CD's). The reason why is you won't be selling anyhow, do don't provide a point of barrier. Actually a blues reviewer could have tried to download your music and it wasn't available so they moved on to someone else.

 

(Prince and Radio head are exceptions and promote 'dreaming'. In reality I really recommend you guys let people download your music)

[mikedavid00]

 

And the more people give it away, the harder it s to get listeners.

 

 

Not true. I tried to listen to your albums and couldn't. You had a potential listener right here.

 

I personally feel that music is meant to be shared and given away.

 

As far as 100,000 listeners, that happens OFTEN in the urban game on Youtube. That 100,000 views will give you very few subs, Twitter followers and fans. You'd be surprised. What gets you fans are longevity, QUANTITY of music made, and consistency.

 

A good amount of 'followers' or 'fans' to have is about 8k-15k. That is fairly standard. When you have radio exposure, the number jumps to around 80k-200k or so.

 

I assure you richardmac if you cleaned up that track I mentioned and got it placed in regular rotation at your local station, you would see BIG changes in your fan base happen. Online media just can't recreate the magic of what local radio can.

 

My beef is, I know the song has potential to be good enough for easy rock listening FM station in your city. Instead of awarding merit and considering you as a local artist, they are too busy supporting a monopoly and keeping a guy like yourself out.

 

If I was to be your manager (I'm not selling myself.. just giving an example), I would take your song, fix it up, and then aggressively go after your local FM radio station and demand regular rotation. That would be my priority. I'd also tell the DJ that your album could be downloaded for free. We'd make a new CD to sell live.

 

I'm not in denial. I see it all the time when an artist in the UK gets played on radio and then gets fans. Youtube just doesn't do the same magic. Youtube views are almost meaningless. It's like the fans almost want your local radio stations seal of approval before they like you. Seriously. I know the power of the airwaves and this is my main beef.. It requires REGULAR rotation though. Not getting played twice. This is what I would go after as your manages. Most other managers would do something totally different.

[mikedavid00]

 

my point is, you gotta start somewhere, so here we go. yes, it's gonna be tough and take more time and money than i probably realize, but i'd love to "stick it to the man" and wave to the labels as i pass them on the way to the bank.

 

 

Without a label behind you, you'll have trouble getting on radio rotation. That guy on the video is being more of a dreamer than presenting reality.

 

You will get fans, you will get people on the net, but they will be at different parts of the world, and only a FEW of them would ever bother to come out and see you live.. you won't get a large number of fans unless you get regular rotation on radio. trust me I'm around independents all day.

[mikedavid00]

 

If you can get them intrigued, get them to a show, then convert them into a fan, that's where it's going to be at in the future.

 

 

I agree.

 

Where we disagree is where you believe the FM radio/label monopoly will fail, and I believe it will only get worse. I believe the labels will always hold the cards to who gets noticed, and who stays small.

 

Despite all the technological freedom, there's going to be a million other competitors in the internet swamp. On radio your limited down to maybe 50 and are reaching hundreds of thousands of people. Just in my market alone you can reach so many. It's such a shame that this is only dedicated to the signed artists. The radio is such a great format to get audiences 'familiar' with an artist. If you get put in rotation I can guarantee you thousands of fans coming your way. The radio Dj's are supposed to know what the audience will like and tell you if your music is good or not. If it's good, then you should be rewarded with *regular* rotation. People will like it.

 

It's just that as a tax payer and citizen the airwaves are supposed to be there for you. Your city council talks about promoting local arts etc and awards these corporations the local airwave bands to broadcast music made possible by your tax dollar. And then they want to screw local artists out of a realistic chance for regular rotation. Sure they might play your song twice, but I'm talking about putting it in rotation and getting it out there. I'm surprised I'm the only one that considers this a huge problem.