iTunes Chart-Toppers (a/o February 21st):
We've seen similarly 'great-on-paper' ideas come and go, most notably '1000 True Fans'. But chew on this: what if you could get your most dedicated fans to pay you $1 a month in exchange for upfront exclusives, a direct stream of music, and other benefits? Just another theoretical possibility, or a potentially winning idea?
Here's a presentation from the startup backing the concept, Airborne Music. According to Airborne's logic, 1,658 'carriers' paying a dollar a month would give artists a minimum wage salary.
Comments Closed
Greg Friday, November 18, 2011
Since when is minimum wage $2?
Amy Saturday, November 19, 2011
365 days in a year -- 5 out of every 7 of which are working days -- minus 10 statutory holidays (doing this as an Ontarian) gives 250.7 working days per year, or 20.9 working days per month. Assuming 8 hour work days, $1658 works out to $9.92 an hour. That's in the ballpark of minimum wage.
Me Tuesday, November 22, 2011
I think he's making a joke that he only has 2 dedicated fans.
Benji Rogers Friday, November 18, 2011
Our average spend per fan in the US is $64 and these are from our artists hardcore fanbase. Why settle for $1 a month?
gaetano Friday, November 18, 2011
I love it on paper.
And I just like the fact that people are starting to think this way.
Even if this isn't the most logical, tangible or perfect idea, we're getting somewhere.
Anything that turns fans from consumers into patrons, and artists from sharecroppers to subsistence farmers is a step in the right direction.
I like how there's a pay it forward concept built into the concept as well.
Buck Monday, November 21, 2011
On paper it works... til you consider how many artists a single person would be willing to support at $12 per year. Hardcore fans would be the ones most likely to support this business model but I doubt that many would be willing to fork over money for more than a few artists in a given year.
Perhaps if there was a flat rate subscription service based on this model that allowed folks to switch up "subscribed" artists on a monthly basis?
gaetano Monday, November 21, 2011
I completely agree, it can't really be considered a functioning revenue stream across the boards for everyone, or even a realistic solution for the entire community, but I still think if it was presented in a way such as Kickstarter (which to be honest I'm not the hugest fan of) it could get some traction.
I like your idea of the moving subscription, though I feel like this concept is best served in the realm of meritocracy. So, if you like what you've heard/seen but want more, your input funds the future ventures. Once you don't like the nature, direction or rate of output, you can bail. It's not much different from people picking apart albums from itunes...do I think that's good for art? not necessarily, but it could keep revenue coming in and inform the artist of what is commercially viable.
The issue that comes up a lot of times is how are these funds used. This isn't a trust fund with a board of directors. Even Kickstarter starts with a very specific goal and intention in mind, and a hard number as far as what they need to fund it. The biggest hurdle I see this service having is not looking like a "welfare for musicians".
There was a company called Normative that basically tried to make artists into businesses, and gave them advances. Francis and the Lights did this. They did this thing where they tweeted their expenses everyday for a year, to show transparency in where their allocated funds were going. In the end, it seemed kind of silly. This is a more pay as you go, almost like being a shareholder in the artist, except the returns are in the actual material put forth through your invesment.
Christian Tuesday, November 22, 2011
You surmize that fans wouldn't pay $12 a year for special promotinal access to music from one artist year-round but by the conventional model would pay $21.99 for an LP each year, maybe even more for additional singles etc. (talking fans who still buy physical formats, which I reckon are just the type of fans we are discussing here)?
gaetano Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Considering that at this point in time, most people don't want to pay anything, I will err on the side of caution. I'm interested to see how this whole thing plays out.
That said, as the artists "carrier" numbers start to increase, and their carriers begin to share more and more content, that exclusive content will lose it's value by nature of that saturation.
Granted, at that point you might be creating new/more revenue streams, but there is a scarecity/supply and demand issue built into this.
In the end, it appears that it's really about the fan and the artist and the relationship established between them. Looks to be empowering for the both of them.
This will never work Saturday, November 19, 2011
The basic assumption is flawed. A scheme like this feels to much like charity. And charity is better pointed at people who really need it.
gaetano Saturday, November 19, 2011
So, who are the people who really need it in regards to the music industry?
The artists, the labels, or the fans??
Glacial Concepts Saturday, November 19, 2011
I like models like this, but Airborne has some unresolved questions in their video ( which is to be expected becuase how many business plans can be accurately examined in a 3 minute hype video )
1. Publishing: This model can only work if the artist has their own publishing, and never releases a cover song. The form on their site wants to know if there is a record deal for rights conflicts, but it does not ask about publishing deals. This makes me wonder what they understand about music law, or what work around they have negotiated with publishers.
2. The minimum wage figures, work only for solo artists, a band would get a fraction of that amount at 1600 fans. They are also stating gross revenue as musician take home pay which is misleading. This does not take into account the cost of recording the music or any other content ( i.e. videos ) that would be released in the stream. In their example a 4 piece band grosses 20k a year with which to make their recordings. If they spend half of that on content creation they each take home 2500 dollars, which is not minimum wage.
I'd like to know the file format and user interface, as that will go a long way on determining whether fans adopt this model.
gaetano Saturday, November 19, 2011
These are all great points,
The way Im seeing this service, it's more like a sponsor/patron or what they're calling "carrier" based artist development system.
This could potentially fill in some holes that will help you get out of the garage, which is one of the harder things now that fewer people are willing to pay for anything.
It doesn't cost a fortune to make a decent recording or video anymore, though of course you get what you pay for in those departments. $25,000 at the end of a year could potentially go for a higher quality studio recording or video. Other things something like that could help offset are touring costs or overhead to produce merchandise.
As far as publishing, I think that the market this system would appeal to very likely own their pubishing.
To me it's closer to something like Kickstarter, but actively engages the patron in the development of the artist as opposed to just coughing up some capital upfront.
Maxwellian Saturday, November 19, 2011
If you are one person with zero setup costs (or let's say nearly 0) then this could work. but a 5 piece bachanga band there's no way. Only a Jack Johnson style solo warrior could really benefit.
::MW
Oh dear Saturday, November 19, 2011
Another "startup" that failed to consult a lawyer and an accountant before lauching its ridiculous bla-bla-bla-bla-bla.
Who pays taxes for that $1, dear enterpreneurz?
alden Saturday, November 19, 2011
watching digital music news readers slowly broil this business plan. sad by my idea of a good time.
axxll Monday, November 21, 2011
It's obviously a model that works. Look at successful fan clubs like the Ten Club, which generates millions per year. Fans like me pay between $20 and $40 per year for exclusives and most imporantly the opportunity for premium fan club seating pre sales. But, this is Pearl Jam and not some DIY up and comer, which needs to build it's fan club base first before being able to monetize it.
Airborne's model would be an ondemand fan club solution.
www.twitter.com/axxll
Wordo Monday, November 21, 2011
I'd like to see anybody launch a successful business with zero costs. The bigger you get the more you have to spend. And recording is not free. To make a good recording takes expertise. Mastering isn't cheap. And promoting yourself isn't either. And don't even get me started on how money-losing it is to tour if you are an unknown.
Nice idea in theory. Sounds like somebody trying to apply really simplified math to the real costs of becoming a working artist. I could come up with a hundred hypothetical ways that would "fix" the problems of being an unknown artist as long as I could ignore the realities of human behavior.
The problem is nobody has figured out how to make a lot of money off of the thousands of hours required to create good music.
gaetano Monday, November 21, 2011
I think this is fatalist thinking, especially since the service hasn't even launched yet, or unveiled any type of backend info as to how it will cover it's own operating costs etc. I gave them my email and am looking forward to seeing what they have to say.
As far as recording being expensive, or you needing an expensive recording to garner any type of attention or value, that's subjective at best and many times proven not true.
Case in point, the last band I was in made their record completely on garageband, and that record was picked up by Matador. The label paid for a master in the end, but somehow they saw the worth in the music regardless of the means of production.
If you look at the majority of indie acts..(and these are upwardly mobile ones) these are not people tracking at Avatar, getting mixed by Tony Maserati and Mastered by Bob Ludwig.
I agree that it's not easy, I've been in it/at it for a decade now,but it's not impossible. It just takes time and in many cases experience, both musically and business wise.
Wallace E. Monday, November 21, 2011
If you compare an API console with Garageband, you obviously have never stepped foot inside a real studio, nevermind actually listening a playback from said console.
As for Matador, that's no big surprise: There are lots of tone deaf people working for well known labels. Why do you try to use it as an excuse?
gaetano Monday, November 21, 2011
You know, maybe you're right.
Fortunately, I've stepped foot into many studios. As a session and touring drummer in NYC for the past 10 years (as well as music supervisor and producer for ads and film) I've worked in every major studio in the city (and some that no longer exist). Avatar, Hit Factory, Magic Shop, Electric Lady, Quad, Stratosphere are all great. I've worked with not only an API, but various Neves, SSL's, Tridents, and the like.
I've also worked on Soundcrafts, Tofts, Digidesign and other less expensive desks/control surfaces.
I'm not comparing the quality of a desk, outboard or a studio here, my point is that to the label and consumer, these things have become more or less completely irrelevant. I'm not saying this is better or worse, it's just the nature of the industry now.
I love Steve Albini, I also love Dr. Luke.
They serve two completely different purposes within music, and in my opinion there's no reason to qualify either against the other.
I'm not using Matador as an excuse, what I'm saying is that you can't use not having a budget or certain gear to justify not having a viable product or career anymore.
You also can't blame the listener, or the labels. It's your responsibility to create something and take it to market. If you're not making something people want to buy, or even speculate buying (or selling for that matter) that's not anyone's fault but your own.
Chances are, your well recorded, mixed and mastered record will be pirated and played via low quality mp3 on earbuds.
Are there other impending circumstances that will effect your viabiity in this market? Sure. But you're kidding yourself if you think that cost prohibitive production methods or "deaf people" at labels are what's blocking your success.
mdti Monday, November 21, 2011
>>>>
will be pirated and played via low quality mp3
>>>>
Unfortunately, there are a lot of higher quality "pirate" (FLAC at high bit/sampleing rates , for an example), even though the torrent sites i keep an eye on have more mp3...
Meaning there are audiophiles in the audience of torrent sites (or people who want to try higher quality).
You know, they can pirate BlueRay and make available files of 30Gigabyte...
This should not be an argument to deliver low quality though :-)
24 bit wave file should be(come) standard anyway (eventhough there is no 24 bits consumer player), for the sake of audio quality.
mdti Monday, November 21, 2011
and some musicians happily download cracks of hundreds of gigabytes....
damn it, someone give musicians and consumers jobs and money, or the tree will be rotten from its deeper roots to its highest top....
gaetano Monday, November 21, 2011
Sadly, I feel that once the recorded medium itself became disposable, so did much of it's content and value to the consumer.
Industry by design removes and desensitizes the raw materials (the artist) from the consumer via the production/marketing/distribution process.
Until the content makers themselves disappear, we're not going to see a real change in this. Unfortunately, the market is completely saturated, and larger labels and their investors can subsidize losses with a few bread winning artists and alternative revenue methods that are just not realistic for most.
Prince said he won't make another record until something is done about piracy. It's gonna take more than Prince's talent embargo to create a complete paradigm shift in the current nature of things.
I'm trying to be a pragmatic idealist on this one...
logicbox Monday, November 21, 2011
For fuck's sake, it's called a fan club.
John Pointer Tuesday, November 22, 2011
This is what we've been doing at Patronism.com for over a year, with a couple of fundamental differences:
Patrons on our system pay what they feel (like Radiohead's In Ranbows) but as a subscription. Turns out they choose to pay over $12/mo on average, not $12/yr. You get an entirely different answer when you ask, "What can you chip in to make sure I can keep making music for you?" and "what would you pay for this product?" People want to pay musicians who make music that is meaningful to them, they just don't want to pay "the wrong people" (eg. labels, with whom they have no personal relationship). Then it's just on the artist's shoulders to move people with great work, and let them know there's a new way to engage beyond buying CDs and merch.
Regarding mechanicals and other legal issues, I'm a musician, so I built it to serve musicians - you get track counts for downloads so you can keep up with your mechanicals if you post a cover tune. It is your responsibility to own your masters or have an agreement to post the sound recordings legally. If you don't and we get a complaint, we'll take it down. But even if you don't own the masters, and gave away your publishing in a bad deal, you can still record new versions (eg. backstage before a show, inner sanctum, acoustic, etc.) and simply pay mechanicals. When someone is paying you $12/mo you can certainly afford it - they simply can't download that many cover songs at ~9¢ each for the mechanicals every month.
At the end of the day, it's just a fan club on steroids, crossed with a crowdfunding site, which works like a publishing platform.
We've also got a version of the project-based fundraiser that's coming online soon which will put the KickStarter model on steroids, too. There's a fundamental perspective shift that will really focus creativity onto the creation of the project, rather than the fulfillment of enticement orders (eg. "fund my record and I'll send you an advance copy, a poster and signed tee-shirt").
WILL Tuesday, November 22, 2011
mdti Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A couple of the most succesful french singers come from such websites were fans are "producers" of the band/singer....
Fans fund you because they like you, and if you get enough support, you should quickly get a publishing deal and may be more....
mdti Tuesday, November 22, 2011
the idea was that the website was owned by professionals of the industry, and at a certain threshold, they double the funds (add 100% of what you collected) and produce a record and begin career building, if you want to...
what seems to be the problem? Tuesday, November 22, 2011
They don't have to pay $1 a month. They can just buy the album for $8-9, from iTunes, once. That's it. No excuses, no lies, nothing. Just buy the fucking album. I don't need "donations". I am a professional.
Logic? Tuesday, November 22, 2011
If my most dedicated fan is a dedicated fan, then he already has bought all my albums, will buy future releases for him and buy the albums for Christmas for his friends.
Why would I need an extra $1 a month?
@N_Simone Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Natalie Harewood
Interesting concept...
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us