Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
You know the old saying: 'you gotta pay to play'. But should artists be required to pay to submit to festivals, even if they end up not playing (ie, getting rejected)? This has been a long-running complaint among artists and managers at places like SXSW, where bands are required to pay a fee through Sonicbids for consideration.
And so what? Doesn't the payment of an entry fee signal some level of seriousness? And, shouldn't promoters have the right to normalize the chaos of submissions? "It's ultimately the choice of the promoter out there," Sonicbids founder Panos Panay recently told Digital Music News. "When you're applying to college, the college says 'this is the way I need you to apply for me.'"
But what about shifting the payment obligation onto the festival promoters, instead of the artists? Well, that's exactly the model being pursued by GigMaven, a company specialized in booking, ticketing, and promoting gigs. In fact, GigMaven counts Make Music New York among its first festival clients - but the critical difference is that GigMaven wants festivals to foot the bill, not artists. "I've never been a big fan of the premium artists have to pay because of Sonicbids," said Howard Han, GigMaven founder and CEO. "It's bad for artists and although it provides short term cash for festivals, it damages their reputation in the long run."
This is a licensed white label submissions service, another key difference. But can Han unseat Sonicbids, arguably the standard in this space and a company with years of specialized experience? Sounds like a difficult challenge, though Han is slowly chipping away. "We plan on pitching the larger festivals but I [first] want to sign up more smaller festivals..."
Comments Closed
Dave Cool Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Although it's tempting to blame Sonicbids for submission fees, I think many people might forget that festivals and conferences were charging submission fees long before Sonicbids ever existed, and will continue to do so with or without using their service. Some festivals actually take applications from both Sonicbids and directly to the festival, but you still have to pay the submission fee by PayPal, credit card, etc.
Sonicbids can be an easy target for criticism, and much of that was self-inflicted by having opportunities that normally wouldn't charge a submission fee start charging through Sonicbids. But they've started to reverse that trend through their new tokens system, where 60% of the opportunities are now free to submit to, with their goal to increase that to 90%.
But for festivals, it's not about Sonicbids, it's about the festival promoters. I admire what GigMaven is trying to do, but many festivals are scraping every last dollar they can to make their festival financially viable, and for some, that budget line item for submissions fees is too great to simply give up.
Of course, the other reason to charge a submission fee is to actually prevent festivals from getting tens of thousands of submissions, which to sort through would result in extra administration and staff hours, i.e. extra costs to the festival. Some might be willing to do this, but many will likely want to keep that financial toll in place to prevent the application floodgates from opening.
All that being said, it will be interesting to see if GigMaven gains some traction in the industry.
Cheers,
Dave
Dave Cool
(Yes, that’s my real name!)
Friend of the Indie Artist. Sometimes Documentary Filmmaker.
http://www.davecool.ca
http://twitter.com/#!/dave_cool
Howard Han Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Dave,
All excellent and well-articulated points. To be clear, I truly understand that some festivals need submissions fees in order to generate revenue and cover their overhead and I am not making the argument that they should not charge fees. Instead, I am saying there is a premium on these fees when a middleman is involved and the economics of these premiums are much higher than other transaction related businesses.
As for Panos's comment regarding applying to college, I'm not sure that's the right analogy. I think it would be more akin to Google asking the 75,000 people who apply weekly for a job to pay a $50 fee because if you are chosen for the festival, that festival will make money off of you playing there, like Google would make money off of you as an employee. If you get into college, they're not really going to make money off of you and most of the the time, your tuition fees will not even cover the total cost of your education (the difference which is covered by public/private funding and endowements).
Lastly, regarding using a fee as a submission filter - yes, it definitely cuts down on submissions but I'm not sure it's the best way to filter. Instead, we need tools to help festival organizers (and venues) screen and pinpoint the relevant applicants for them - tools we're working on which we hope will benefit the industry as a whole.
Best,
Howard Han
CEO/Founder, GigMaven
Dave Cool Thursday, April 07, 2011
Hi Howard,
Thanks for your response. Panos himself would have to weigh-in on this, but my impression is that if a festival normally charges a $25 submission, then it's also $25 on Sonicbids. My understanding is that Sonicbids does not charge their own fee that would cause an increase in the festival submission fee. One quick example would be Pop Montreal (which I know of offhand because I live here in Montreal): http://popmontreal.com/en/community/events/apply-pop-2011
Now, if you're talking about their monthly subscription fees as being a premium, then yes, that would indeed be an extra cost. The argument here is that if you were to apply directly to festivals, then you would have to send a CD, press kit, pay for postage, etc. (like in the example of Pop Montreal).
There are those that believe that Sonicbids offers enough value in return for that monthly fee (an EPK, access to thousands of opportunities, Facebook app, social media syncing, partner discounts, etc.), and there are obviously many who do not believe it is worth the monthly membership fee. I am certainly not trying to be a Sonicbids cheerleader, and I have my own issues with the company (including the membership fee), which I laid out in a blog post last year: http://davecool.ca/2010/03/the-dirty-word-at-folk-alliance-2010-sonicbids/
But I think what you're doing with GigMaven is admirable, and if you can find a way to develop tools for festivals that would convince them to drop submission fees as a filter for applications, then I will certainly be cheering.
All the best,
Dave
Dave Cool
(Yes, that’s my real name!)
Download a free copy of “What is INDIE?”:
http://twitter.com/#!/dave_cool
Dennis Thursday, April 07, 2011
Interesting thoughts, Howard, but Paul (of digital music news) made it seem like MMNY was paying GigMaven for this service, which having participated with MMNY I find hard to believe. Are they really paying you for the service to manage artist registrations, because otherwise it feels like the article is misrepresenting what's really happening?
presnikoff Thursday, April 07, 2011
Yes, MMNY is paying GigMaven for its white-label service, according to Howard. Here's what he told me:
"No, our model is very different. We're not charging artists to apply, this is for festival organizers to have a white label site powered by gm, which u can see at makemusicny.org. We charge a license fee to the festival to power their site. "
/pr
John Friday, April 08, 2011
In the quote, Howard never makes explicit that MMNY is actually paying for this- it seems that moreso he's speaking to the larger business model of having promoters pay for a white-labeled submission platform that lives on their site.
Howard -- can you clarify here?
Are there any promoters/festival bookers out there reading this that would pay for this solution?
@darrylgregory Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Darryl Gregory
Should Artists Pay for Festival Submissions? No
@KatieRoxMusic Thursday, April 07, 2011
Katie Rox
AMEN!
BIG BUSINESS Thursday, April 07, 2011
NO!
Seth Keller Thursday, April 07, 2011
The only artists that pay to submit to festivals are the ones that can't get invited. 99.9% of them will not get chosen.
Maybe applying to colleges is a racket, but most kids apply to a few and only to the ones they have a shot at getting into.
Panos may be the best human being on the planet but Sonicbids is a true waste of time for most of the artists that use it to try to get chosen to play events.
Be great at what you do, build a following, be patient, persistent and dedicated. It may take years, but if you're any good, festivals will come to you or you'll get an agent that will submit you without charging an upfront fee.
If you're an artist and someone is charging you a fee without working for you or providing a valuable service, you're getting ripped off.
Ignacio Thursday, April 07, 2011
@Seth
I heard that every artist has to apply to SXSW through Sonicbids - even huge artists - is that wrong?
rodney steinberg Thursday, April 07, 2011
@seth way to keep it real. tough love, but it's true
@TK421MUSIC Thursday, April 07, 2011
TK421 Music
a resounding "no." Not even going to bother indulging you in my why extorting artists isn't ok. GigMaven rules.
@Fiachmusic Thursday, April 07, 2011
Fiach
hell no!
@magicpiemusic Thursday, April 07, 2011
Magic Pie
Should artists pay to play in festivals? Sure, why not? Specially if it reduces prices..
Darren Gallop Thursday, April 07, 2011
This is a topic of debate that people will never agree on. There are strong and valid arguments to each side. I find it interesting that GigMaven is getting the festival to pay the cost of the system. The problem I foresee is festivals having a hard time paying for this extra cost especially if the primary value proposition is getting more submissions and with no charge or real barrier to entry for artists to apply. Without a barrier of entry there will likely be many more submissions for each festival. I did see a comment in the thread where GigMaven responded referring to better filters than cash and I agree with that but am stumbled as to what filters could be created to control this problem. If a festival gets 1000 submissions it becomes very difficult for them to honestly give these all a listen. Another thing to consider is that most festivals are filling the majority of their festival slots with bands they see at other festivals, are pitched by managers and agents, referred by other festival promoters, musicians and industry folk whom they mingle with.
I work pretty closely with many festivals in Canada and Australia and from my conversations with them, it seems that only a few slots go to SonicBids artists. They program their festival by first going after headliners they think will sell tickets, then they grab some high profile local or regional acts that can help sell tickets but not break the bank, maybe they then drop in a few up and coming artists that they have discovered over time and that they want to help break, then they get pitched a few artists from the agencies with whom they have booked the headliners and so on... This is not always necessarily in this order but I thank I am getting the point across.
Most of the people that program festivals are into music. They go to shows, music showcase events, other festivals. they are constantly being referred music from friends and associates they trust to understand their taste and their event. They are always discovering new music and often seeing this music in person, live music. This is the ultimate sell for an artistic director of a festival. To stand in a room watching a band kick ass live. Looking around the room at people loving it and thinking. "THESE GUYS WOULD BE AWESOME AT MY FESTIVAL!"
So I guess, what I am saying is if the festival is not making money from using a submission system the focus has to be on the services that the system offers after submissions are entered. How is that data used and how can that be applied to other functions, solving problems or simplifying workflows within the festival. The simple reality is that artistic directors are not going to sit their and program the majority of their event sifting through an overwhelming pile of unsolicited material. This is not reality.
From an artist manager perspective, although most of my waking hours go into my software company, I do still manage one up and coming Canadian artist, Carmen Townsend. She just released her debut CD 2 months ago and we are landing some decent festival plays for her but this is happening through rolling up our sleeves and working our asses off for it. Showcasing, being introduced to festival directors, getting Carmen in front of them, putting her into the market and giving the festival staff some tickets, getting press in the market of a target festival, getting artists that I know whom have been successful at a target festival to recommend, making high quality live footage of Carmen and her band, pushing our agent on the case... Anything just shy of being really annoying that I can do to get the festival to take notice and then once they are intrigued, to build their confidence that my artist will be a success at their event. This is after narrowing down a list of festivals I target based on carefully researching new talent decisions the festival has made in the past, genre selection and so on
Technology has not and will not replace this natural human process. All of these new tools to get more gigs may allow you to score a shot here and there but there is no shortcut around the real work an artist or their manager or agent needs to put in to land those career boosting festival plays.
@darrengallop
CEO Marcato Digital
http://marcatofestival.com/
http://marcatomusician.com/
Rock N' Roll Buddha Thursday, April 07, 2011
I would submit that Sonicbids offers a (mostly) crappy service, and artist and managers figured that out long ago and were leaving in droves after realizing that Sonicbids did NOTHING to help them.
When Sonicbids saw that, they realized they would be out of business very quickly unless they could find another more reliable revenue stream - hence, the Festival Submission scam.
Artists should NOT have to pay to submit to ANY legitimate Music Festival. The festivals have many other potetnial revenue streams, not the least of which are the sponsors and vendors who pay to have their booths at the festivals.
Sonicbids is an ineffectual service that should be allowed to go away...
Suzanne Lainson Thursday, April 07, 2011
The trouble with SonicBids was that many bands were paying to submit and had no chance of getting selected. And the festivals knew it. They were using the submission fees as a revenue source.
There used to be a built-in filter when people had to send a press kit and CD. If you didn't take the time to do that and didn't have anything decent to send, you weren't going to be taken seriously. Telling people to submit an EPK while at the same time telling them you were charging them to show that they were serious did not improve the selection process for them and was usually more expensive than sending in a CD.
I've known artists who festivals already wanted and the artists knew that. They were then told to submit through SonicBids so SonicBids would get credit for the submission.
That is the problem with the "pay to submit" process. It's basically dishonest. It would be better for everyone to say that the submission process is done as a money-raiser and the lucky bands will then benefit by getting some of that money back in the form of payment. Or the selection criteria should be so clear that a high percentage of the submitting bands will know they are likely to be selected. Actively discourage anyone who doesn't have a chance so they don't waste their money.
@Gigsby Thursday, April 07, 2011
Gigsby
Props to GigMaven taking a stand against the silly practice of artists paying for festival submissions
Panos Panay Friday, April 08, 2011
Hi There,
This is Panos, founder of Sonicbids. I've been following the comments and I think much of what I have to say has already been captured in comments made by Dave Cool and others.
In many ways this whole subject is moot, as right now 65% of all gigs on Sonicbids carry no submission fees. By June, this number will be 90%. But, I will also say that we are keeping some premium listings fee based, because I’ve seen these fees work and create opportunities for emerging music that without them would have never been possible. If you care, read further. If you’re fixed in your opinion, then don’t waste your time reading my rather long-winded response.
We at Sonicbids did not invent submission fees. They existed long before I launched the company 10 years ago. Do I feel that it's worth it for an artist to pay $25 or whatever to be considered for SXSW or CMJ? Of course I do. And as an unabashed believer in free market dynamics, I will tell you that if it was not worth it, then countless managers and agents and artists would not be applying to perform at these conferences every year -- and benefitting from showcasing at them for over 25 years now. Is emerging music better off because SXSW, CMJ and other similar festivals exist? You bet. Could they take place if they did not charge these fees? I doubt it.
As far as other non-conference promoters that charge fees, when a band is still developing and young and untried, nearly all the financial risk lies with the promoter that books them as in many cases there is no guarantee that they will recoup their cost of the evening/event from the crowds that a young, emerging band will bring. I would go further and say that in most cases, these bookings are almost always at a loss as most events sell tickets not based on the emerging bands they book but by booking the same old, same old headliners. It’s changing but we’re not there yet.
Historically, this unknown has made many promoters risk averse – or even downright hostile -- to booking new music (join in on any of the calls that we have every day to festivals around the planet if you want to get a flavor of the objections to indie music). Why take a risk on a new artist when one represented by a label or an agent comes with a known draw that at least covers some or most of their costs? (By the way, keep in mind that most clubs and most festivals are labors of love and largely unprofitable. I personally don’t know many promoters that live the good life.)
Small submission fees, earned by promoters, take some of that risk-aversion away. And many times WE will assume all the risk (Sonicbids) by sponsoring events and guaranteeing them revenue – often at a huge loss. Last year, we spent over $3 million to create these opportunities out there. And yes, it takes THAT much money to change the attitudes of people towards booking emerging music. And you know what? It’s working. We are on a track to DOUBLE the amount of gigs that are getting booked on Sonicbids from 80,000 to 160,000 this year.
I wish I could tell you that the 30,000 people going to Bonnaroo in June are going there to see the 10 bands that are getting booked using Sonicbids but that’s not the case. But, we insisted that the bands get paid $1,000 each, we are giving ALL fees to charity (designated by the Bonnaroo guys) and we are paying to sponsor the event as well. All in the name of promoting emerging music.
I am not going to go on and on about these fees (as I mentioned, we are moving to having over 90% of the gig listings to be non-fee based). I will tell you that they have enabled investments and created opportunities ranging from tours, to festival gigs, to channels on airlines, and slots in TV shows, all of which showcase new music, and would not have been there without them.
Lastly, if you don’t like paying submission fees to conferences and festivals, there are other avenues out there. But arguably, all require an investment one way or another. If you want to build any business, be it a music career or a company you have to be willing to take risks and invest money and time and energy. I'm not going to lead you on to believe that there's any other way.
Trust me, I know first hand. I started Sonicbids by raking up $30,000 in credit card debt that took me 4 years to pay off and $50,000 of my personal savings, which was all the money I had in the bank (and nearly completely depleted). No one ever guaranteed me that all the energy and money that I would be investing would ever amount to anything. And unlike most online businesses, I did not start with a nice cool $1 million in VC money or whatever. I took a huge personal risk because of my belief and love and passion for emerging music.
I’m glad it did it. Because nearly 350,000 gigs that have been booked since I started this site almost exactly 10 years ago and we think we’ll add another 160,000 this year.
Rock on.
Panos
P.S. Wanna comment directly to me? Go to my blog. I listen.
@gerrycircus Friday, April 08, 2011
gerrycircus
sonicbids is a redundant model for musicians.the only person profiting is panos
@Pjgarea Saturday, April 09, 2011
Peter J. Garea
Should Artists Pay for Festival Submissions?
No!!
chriskmusic Thursday, April 14, 2011
I am involved in the selection and/or buying of talent for three regional festivals ... one that books over 100 acts, one that books over 70 and one that books 7.
I've never used Sonicbids or any other service, nor would I. As a talent buyer/advisor, if I don't know my market and the top bands in my market, no software made can help me.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us