If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur

from the that's-how-it-works dept

One of the common criticisms we hear around here when we talk about the various business models that are working for more and more musicians these days, is that it's somehow "unfair" or even "wrong" that musicians need to think about business models these days, since they should just be spending all their time creating music. Of course, this assumes (incorrectly) that the same thing wasn't true in the past as well. For years, musicians have always teamed up with business managers and music labels for that very reason: to delegate some of the business tasks. That doesn't change in the modern era. What does change is that the different opportunities have grown significantly. Either way, Andrew Dubber (who's always worth paying attention to on these topics) recently put a comment on a blog post on this particular topic that is so good it shouldn't be buried as just a comment, so I'm going to highlight some of the key parts here:

Musicians deserve more money than they get. Most train harder and for longer than brain surgeons in order to do what they do, and then they earn less than checkout operators for what they do. I strongly believe that more money should go to more musicians more often than it does....

Making music is not (usually) a job of work. It is a creative act. You don't have the RIGHT to make money from your music. You only have the opportunity.

If you make music speculatively - that is, you create it in the hopes of making money from it, then you are a music entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurship rules apply.

You may invest a good deal of energy, effort and expense in your creative ideas. You may make a lot of money. You will probably make none. But nobody OWES you money just because you put the work in.

If your business model is to grow and sell oranges, then it's no good picking the oranges, then leaving them on the footpath outside your house with a price tag on each one. It doesn't matter how great your oranges are, or how hard you've toiled in your garden. Someone WILL take your oranges. Some will get kicked to the side of the road. Some will get stepped on. But it's not because people are immoral and don't understand or appreciate fruit properly.

If you wish to be reliably rewarded for your music, then get employed to make music as your job.

Bingo. That's the point I've been trying to make for years on this, but said much better than I could express it. He then goes on to make another point I've tried to make in the past, which is that if you compare the situation today to what it was in the past, there are so many more opportunities to make money. In the past, it was nearly impossible to make money on music because there were so many gatekeepers.

The odds are stacked against you. History is littered with musicians who are disillusioned, embittered and broke. This was true before the internet just as it's true now. The internet is neither your saviour, nor your enemy.

Let me make that bit clear: prior to the internet, most people spent NO money on music. If they bought a record in a year, it was a gift for a nephew (and it was usually rubbish). Some people spent a lot of money on music, because it was tied up with cultural things like identity that they were really invested in.

Back when you needed a record label to just be heard, it was a lottery. The odds were bad, the lottery tickets were expensive, and most of the prizes - if you did happen to win - were just awful. Now you don't need to play that game - but you need to be smart and you need to understand what the rules of the new game are.

You CAN, of course, get signed to a record label (and that lottery is still in play) but you can also be an entrepreneur. I recommend the latter - but not because it guarantees you money.

But the simple fact is that you don't become a successful entrepreneur by making things that people will not pay for, insisting that they should, and then complaining that their morals are to blame. They may not share your morals, but that's not even the point.

It's not their job to understand your needs. It's your job to understand theirs.

You become a successful entrepreneur by meeting people's needs and wants, solving a problem for them and doing it in a way that allows you to make money.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Even if it was true that all the people you wish to target with your art are immoral thieves who you would never invite into your home - why would you insist on trying to change their behaviour as part of your business strategy?

And he concludes by pointing out (as we have in the past as well) where the real "sense of entitlement" comes from:

You may make great and interesting music, and put on an amazing show with amazing costumes.... But decrying a sense of entitlement among those who won't pay you for what you insist on doing is back to front.

The people with the weird sense of entitlement are the ones who stamp their feet and say 'look at all this hard work I put in - where's my money?'

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content

from the taking-aim-at-your-own-foot dept

At a media summit in Beijing this week, Associated Press CEO Tom Curley and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch declared that "It's time to demand payment for online use of content." This combative language rings ironic, considering the fact that without its content being published on "kleptomaniac" sites like Google News, not many people would even hear about this very article. As Weston Kosova at Newsweek astutely points out, if Rupert Murdoch truly wanted Google to stop "stealing" content, they could very easily stop that today with a simple robots.txt exclusion.

News organizations that are contemplating charging for access to their content might also want to stop calling their potential customers criminals -- that's really not great customer service. And after all, many sites, including Google, are already paying to license some of their content. So, instead of accusing customers of not paying enough, offering better reasons to buy would probably get more sites to pay up. But, that's hard, so jumping up and down and demanding payment in a juvenile manner is much easier.

However, perhaps this is all merely negotiation brinksmanship -- threatening to charge for access to their free content to see if anyone cares enough to pay. The problem is, if the search engines call their bluff and remove their content from their services, then the news organizations actually risk losing much more. As we've pointed out time and time again, news organizations like the AP have been continuing down this road of implosion, where they clearly don't seem to understand the nature of their own business. For example, the AP's obsession with creating a "news registry" that would enable the AP to track down "unlicensed" uses of its content hints at this fundamental misunderstanding. In his speech to the summit, Tom Curley said:

"Crowd-sourcing web services such as Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook have become preferred consumer destinations for breaking news, displacing Web sites of traditional news publishers.

To turn the tide, AP is creating a News Registry -- a rights management and tracking system."

Really? The AP's response to people linking to and discussing AP articles is to go after sites for money? I am waiting to see which news organization will be the first to go after Twitter for payment for news tweets. Instead of focusing on how to demand payment for the distribution of an infinite good, news organizations should recognize the new opportunities afforded by the free distribution of their content and focus on how to build a business off their scarce goods.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says

from the songs-from-luddites dept

In digging deeper into the request from music publishers and songwriters' representatives after they started demanding performance royalties for the 30-second previews in iTunes, Greg Sandoval was able to get a copy of the letter that was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning copyright laws from the National Music Publishers Association, ASCAP, BMI and the Songwriters Guild. Reading the quotes is stunning, in that you could basically paraphrase them as saying "we are luddites -- do not let technology change the way the world works." Here's one quote:

"Technology should not be used to strip rights from songwriters, composers and music publishers. The choice of certain audiovisual delivery systems or methods over others should not result in a diminution of creators' rights or royalties."

Read that one carefully. They are saying that as technology changes, and as the market changes, their royalties should never be allowed to drop. Notice that they're not taking responsibility for adapting to a changing market. They're not saying that they need to adjust and put in place smarter business models. No, they're saying that Congress somehow needs to guarantee that no matter what happens in the market, their royalties remain the same.

What's really revealing is that this quote highlights the fact that these representatives view their royalties as "rights" to be protected -- not revenue to be earned.

No wonder they're lashing out and doing all sorts of ridiculous stuff like trying to get extra royalties on embedded videos, ringtones and 30 second previews. These are the same groups that have publicly decided they need to try to start a PR campaign against people who are trying to protect user rights and fair use. Since that time, we've noticed various people associated with ASCAP and the Songwriters Guild putting up various blogs attacking copyright skeptics in the most ridiculous ways. There's one, which isn't worth pointing out, where a lawyer who works with these groups regularly mocks Larry Lessig, William Patry, Michael Geist and myself -- using nicknames and making up fanciful stories about us. It's the sort of activity you'd expect from a 12-year-old.

It looks like these groups simply feel entitled to having the government force everyone to hand over money. Songwriters who belong to these organizations are being led down a dangerous path. It seems like there's room in the market for groups to represent songwriters' interests without being anti-fan or anti-technology. Quite clearly, ASCAP, BMI, NMPA and the SGA do not fall into that category. Instead, they're pretending that the world owes them money just for existing, and they're going to lash out anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Billy Bragg's Backwards Approach To Helping Artists

from the blame-others dept

While I may be a fan of Billy Bragg's music, I have a lot of trouble getting behind his take on the music industry. Last year, we had a bit of a back-and-forth with Bragg when he suddenly wanted to demand a cut of Bebo's sale price to AOL, claiming that it was unfair since he had put his music on the site for free. When asked whether or not Bebo would have the right to demand some of Bragg's money if the company had flopped, Bragg didn't seem to have any answer at all.

That episode is a precursor to what appears to be Bragg's current position on the industry, which has a mix of good and bad. As with Bebo, he supports using new online services, and not being anti-consumers (good!). But, as with Bebo, he seems to want to demand entitlement to any revenue that anyone makes (bad!). It's entitlement society again. Rather than recognizing that the responsibility is on him -- and on other artists -- to come up with business models that work, he demands that others (and the gov't) create those business models and just hand him a check. It puts the responsibility off of him and onto everyone else, as if they owe him a business model.

On the one hand, he talks up how useful new technologies are for distribution and promotion, but then he immediately talks about "the damaging aspects of illegal downloading on the livelihoods of the creative community." It's only damaging for those who don't put in place a smart business model. As we've seen time and time and time again, put in place a smart business model that embraces file sharing, combined with good music and a strong connection with fans, and piracy isn't a problem. It's free marketing and distribution.

Bragg talks up the need to compete with sites like The Pirate Bay, but why isn't he looking at actually using The Pirate Bay to his advantage? Plenty of others are. Why does Bragg need to demand help from legislators?

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More On Deserving To Get Paid

from the vs-infringement dept

There's been an interesting discussion concerning my post taking the RIAA to task for various (incorrect) "FACTS" it listed about Joel Tenenbaum and his case. As expected, of course, not everyone agrees with me, but there's a point of disagreement that I wanted to focus on, because I think people are merging two ideas in their minds, and it's clouding their judgment:

1. There's the issue of whether or not Joel Tenenbaum had the right to download or share the songs that he did. On that we absolutely agree that he broke the law. No questions at all.
2. There's a separate issue of whether or not the RIAA "deserves to get paid" for its music.

The folks who are arguing against my point combine these two as a single point, and say that if Joel downloaded/shared the music then the labels "deserve to get paid." My argument is that those are two separate discussions. We agree that Joel broke the law. But that doesn't mean that the record labels "deserve payment." There's no indication that Tenenbaum would have bought CDs in absence of the songs being available online. The labels have a job to do, which is putting in place a business model that gets them paid. And they're failing in doing so, which is why their financials are looking so pitiful these days.

I recognize that it's difficult to separate out these two issues, but it's important. If you understand that these are two separate issues, then you recognize that this is a business model issue, not a legal one. If you recognize that these are two separate issues, then you recognize that it's not about "deserving to get paid" and there's no "we had no choice but to sue." Instead, you recognize that the issue is that the labels have failed to put in place a business model, and their response has been to fight the wrong thing. It's to legally go after the people who wish the labels had put in place a better business model, rather than actually putting in place a better business model.

103 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Entitlement Society: Grad Can't Find Job, Sues Her College For Tuition Back

from the entitlement-culture-gone-wrong dept

We've been talking a lot about "entitlement culture" these days, with much of the focus being on companies or individuals who feel entitled to keep their old business models, even as the market is changing. But entitlement society shows up in other places as well. Jeff Nolan points us to the story of a college graduate who has been unable to find a job since she graduated in April and is now suing her college, Monroe College, for the $70,000 she spent on tuition. Apparently, the fact that we're in one of the worst economic downturns in ages doesn't come into play. Or the fact that what you learn in college (hopefully) lasts a lifetime. To this woman, the fact that she hasn't been able to find a job in four months means she deserves her entire tuition back?

98 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Isn't There Something Ironic In An Anonymous Exec Demanding Transparency From Google?

from the entitlement-culture dept

It really is amazing sometimes to see how many people think that Google "owes" them something. For example, we've had a few different stories about companies suing Google because they don't like how Google ranks them. That makes little sense. Google doesn't owe anyone a spot in its index. It determines its index by figuring out what it thinks people will like best, and it's always tweaking it. If it fails to figure that out properly and someone else (like Microsoft) does figure it out, then Google will lose business. So, it seems a bit odd that some anonymous "well known exec at one of the largest sites on the Internet" is suddenly demanding transparency into how Google ranks content, suggesting that it's somehow unfair and arbitrary in its rankings -- and only by opening up the details of its algorithm will "fairness" be restored.

Ryan, who alerted us to this story, has written up a biting, but reasonable, response, where he notes that being ranked highly in Google is no one's right. And demanding that Google be transparent about its algorithm is meaningless (while being especially ironic, given that this "well-known exec" is demanding transparency while wanting to remain anonymous himself). The key point Ryan makes:

You want an algorithm, here it is:
1.) Sites that are useful to visitors will rank high.
2.) Popular sites that are useful to visitors will rank higher.
3.) Sites that don't offer any value to the web or are irrelevant to the query won't rank well.
4.) Sites that are harmful or spammy won't be included in the index.

Seriously, that's Google’s algorithm in plain English. There's your disclosure. The weighting factors and code behind it don't matter -- these principles are all you really need to know.

Indeed. Create useful sites with useful content that people use, and don't be spammy, and you'll most likely rank well in Google. You don't need to force Google to reveal the nuts and bolts of its algorithm. That doesn't change anything. If you're trying to craft your websites to the specifics of the algorithm, you're already lost. If you're creating websites that match the "plain English" code above, you're going to be just fine.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AP: Others Who Use Our Work For Free Are Stealing... Now Who Wants To Provide Content To Us For Free?

from the double-standards-much? dept

The Associated Press has been going on quite the rampage over the past few months about all those evil online sites that are "stealing" its content, demanding that those who use its content absolutely must pay for it. We joked in response that the AP and other newspapers complaining about people "stealing" their coverage should actually be paying the people who make the news. After all, aren't they really creating the "content"? That was meant as a joke, but sometimes you have to wonder if people at the Associated Press even realize the double standard they've set for themselves.

After all this complaining about others using its content for free, Valleywag points out that the AP was asking people to submit free accounts, pictures and videos of the train crash in Washington DC this week. Apparently "free" only works in one direction with the AP. If it's outbound, it's stealing. If it's inbound... that's reporting.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Newspapers, The Recording Industry And A Misplaced Sense Of Entitlement

from the how-it-works... dept

Earlier this month, the Guardian's Henry Porter wrote a poorly thought out opinion piece attacking Google for not simply handing money over to the recording industry, declaring that Google "creates nothing." This is beyond wrong, it's dumb. If it were true, there would be nothing to worry about, because no one would care about Google. It seems clear that Porter didn't bother to read the widespread criticism about his piece, because he's right back at it, with a column all about "the good old days" of local newspapers, that concludes with yet another misguided attack on Google:

The crisis in local news is not just about "the business model", a phrase I am coming to loathe. It is about the fabric of a society and the careers that grew out of local journalism and have made so many contributions both to journalism and national life.

This is something that new companies such as Google, with all their wealth and lack of obligation to anything beyond their own exhilarated sense of entitlement, will never understand. Why would they when they can sell advertising around journalism that has been provided for free by increasingly desperate newspapers?

This is, of course, a pretty pathetic response. Tim O'Reilly points us to a great "off the cuff" piece by famed baseball statistician Bill James, who in researching a crime novel he's writing also ended up researching the history of the modern newspaper and noted that it was actually quite similar to today's blogging pioneers:

Writing the crime book ... the modern newspapers started about 1836. There were newspapers for a hundred years before that, but they were relatively expensive. In 1836 somebody "invented" the steam-driven printing press ... not sure tying together a steam engine and a printing press can really be considered an invention. But anyway, paper was cheap, so putting together a little engine and a little printing press enabled anybody with a small investment to start his own newspaper. Every significant city by 1845 had dozens of little newspapers, which were much closer to Blogs than to modern newspapers.

One of the first things they did was start writing crime stories, exploiting crimes for money. Then there was 100+ years of newspapers getting bigger and bigger and more organized and more expensive to produce. What were basically one-man shows, and then the better ones hired assistants and then business managers, they added sports sections, cartoons, advertising salesmen and then advertising departments. They invented wire services (about 1890), and then there were syndicated columnists and syndicated features. The newspapers drove each other out of business for 100 years....

We're back to 1836 now, in a sense; everybody who wants to has his own "newspaper", and it's tough to know who is good and who is reliable and who isn't, but the same processes are still running. The blogs will get bigger; the good ones are hiring a second helper and a third and fourth, and we'll spend a century or more sorting things out and re-creating the market. It's hard, but it's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.

But an even better response to Porter's accusation that Google is the entitled party comes via Michael Scott, who points us to a great discussion of Porter's statement by the blog TechnoLlama, who points out that Porter appears to have the whole story backwards:

Is it not the old media the one that has an "exhilarated sense of entitlement" that prompts them to bemoan their loss of prominence with the public? People vote with their feet (or more accurately, with their clicks), and if some local newspaper does not fulfil those functions, then it will disappear.

I'm pretty good at stating the bleeding obvious, but this has to be repeated. We are currently undergoing a shift in media consumption of cataclysmic proportions, the lines are being drawn between what Lessig calls the Read-Only and Read/Write cultures (RO and RW respectively). As the advertising well dries up, the old RO media is left hurt and bewildered, wondering where have all the punters gone. Then they see clips of Susan Boyle on YouTube accumulating 100 million views, and it dawns on them. YouTube and Google have stolen all of the viewers! The parasites do not create anything, yet profit handsomely from stolen content. They try to negotiate, but Google is not budging as it has the upper hand. Then they talk about lost profit, and expect some form of compensation. Soon there will be talk of yet more legal action.

The problem for the RO crowd is that they have it completely backwards. In the age before YouTube, Susan Boyle would have been viewed only by those who actually watched the show (just over 8 million UK viewers). It would have been a water-cooler moment, with people commenting on it. But the fact that it was posted on YouTube and went viral made it a global story, it enhanced the ratings for the show, and in general enhanced ITV's position with advertisers. But all that the RO crowd can think of is loss revenue from those 100 million clicks.

Indeed. I've been amazed to read stories in the press claiming that somehow Boyle and the show Britain's Got Talent somehow is a sad story because the show and/or Boyle didn't "monetize" the traffic with ads, and I'm wondering where these people are coming from. Both Boyle and the show got tremendous amounts of free publicity from YouTube that they never would have received just a few years ago, thanks entirely to YouTube. The fact that the site was able to help promote the whole thing without the TV producers having to pay for advertising, bandwidth or distribution is revolutionary, and a massive change in the way things used to be.

And people are complaining?

The only sense of entitlement is coming from the old school players -- the newspapers and the recording industry -- who fail to recognize revolutionary technologies that are changing their markets, and enabling tremendous new opportunities. These old school players seem to feel entitled to their old business models, even as they fail to embrace the new opportunities and fail to provide what consumers clearly desire. There is no sense of entitlement from the new generation. The philosophy of entitlement comes from the old guard, that seems to think that because they made money one way in the past, the rest of the world has to ignore the possibilities of new technologies in order to let the world pretend that it still needs to do things and pay for things the old way.

That's the only sense of entitlement I'm seeing.

It's not in people participating in news stories by sharing them, spreading them, linking to them and commenting online. And it's not in people sharing music, listening to music and promoting music online. It's in the old industries that refuse to admit that new technologies make things more efficient, and it's in pretending that all new efficiencies must be illegal or immoral because money can no longer be made via outdated business models.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..