A Few More Music Business Model Suggestions
from the keep-'em-coming dept
Every time we talk about the economics of the entertainment industry, someone accuses us of not suggesting any alternative business models. However, we actually have suggested other business models all the time, while showing how other musicians have succeeded in embracing new models to make money while giving fans reasons to pay. Of course, part of the confusion is that many musicians are using slightly different business models to make this work -- which is exactly how it should be. No one is saying that all musicians are going to find that any particular business model works, but there are a number of different business models that all involve using the music to make other (scarce) things more valuable and worth paying for. Reader alex points us to a column from Pitchfork Media that has a bunch of other business model suggestions, mostly focused on giving people a reason to pay, rather than just complaining that they won't pay. Once again, it's important to remember that "free" isn't the business model -- but it's an important part of any business model involving infinite goods.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Mike on Oct 8th, 2007 @ 11:00pm
If the RIAA would look at the business models of the other countries, they would see that most artists are able give their CD's away fro free and make their money off of concerts and merchandise. When will these fucking retards see that $1.00 is way too much to pay for music.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Oct 8th, 2007 @ 11:35pm
The thing you are missing is that in the US anyway, the bands do not work for record sales, they work for merch. Bands make all thier money for the most part off the merchandise they sell at thier gigs, and little to none of that money (except music sales) normally goes to the label. For example, when you see that second and third band on a tour; they normally are not getting anything more than food, lodging and gas money. They only make money for things like toothpaste off merch.
Record companies tend to only make thier money off of record sales. They do a valuable service to the bands and to the music listening public, which is they front the money for the cd to be recorded and then use established distrubution channels to get the product to the consumer. They may also make some money on the tours for what the vanue pays the performers but normally that is only repaying an advance and not profit.
So the UK model wouldn't work for most record companies. It would work for unsigned bands and smaller indie labels but not the big boys.
And no, I am not an RIAA supporter. I think it is stupid to sue people on internet based solutions unless you can prove who the guilty INDIVIDUAL is. The lawsuits seem to be more like saying that someone driving your stolen car ran a red light, and since you didn't know the car was stolen and taken for a joy ride and returned, you are liable for the red light ticket. It seems to me that when there are how many zombies on the internet, that this would be my defense if I ever did share music and was sued. Then I would sue my ISP who's security software came free for the damages incured from the RIAA suit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Mike on Oct 9th, 2007 @ 12:00am
As I agree with you on all of your points except for one. Record labels do not do good for the bands, if they are not making money off of the CD's why do bands go to them? Why not just go to street vendors and make their own CD's to just give away for free, CD printing devices and making mass copies of disks is not that hard. A CD printer is a few 100 dollars and you can go to a company to make X amount of copies for you for dirt cheep.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by MadJo on Oct 9th, 2007 @ 2:06am
The artists do still rely on marketing (is expensive); how else does anyone know that you have brought out a new CD?
But I'm not apologizing for the music industry. They should've seen very early on that all they should be are marketing bureaus for said artist.
Too bad, these marketing bureau managers are too greedy to see that, and refuse to believe that they are nothing more than that, and want all the money they can squeeze out of their licensed artists.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started demanding money off of the merch sales too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Marc Cohen on Oct 9th, 2007 @ 8:15am
Free is the business model if it is paid for by advertising. Selling the time spent listening to music is THE business model. Check out the Ad-Supported Music Central blog: http://ad-supported-music.blogspot.com/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And the songwriters? by Willton on Oct 9th, 2007 @ 2:17pm
I have yet to hear about a feasible free-music business model for the music industry that benefits songwriters that are not performers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: And the songwriters? by Mike on Oct 10th, 2007 @ 11:07am
I have yet to hear about a feasible free-music business model for the music industry that benefits songwriters that are not performers.
Er. They get paid to write the songs? Don't see what's so complicated about that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: And the songwriters? by Willton on Oct 11th, 2007 @ 9:25am
Er. They get paid to write the songs? Don't see what's so complicated about that.
Wrong. Songwriters get paid for the songs they write that sell. Songwriters are not rank-and-file employees of a record company. They get paid solely through the royalties they receive based upon the sales and performance of their music. It has to be this way because there is no objective way to value a song prior to its performance to the public.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Dayana on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:44pm
Im a girl I live in californa I have to brothers and a mom and dad I love my famil I want to be a model i love to danci
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment