A few bands (Radiohead, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails) decide to sell music without a label involved, and, judging from the subsequent reaction, the world has suddenly discovered an entirely new business model for the music industry.
The reality is going direct is far from a new approach – Aimee Mann, for example, has been going direct since 1999 after artist differences with Geffen Records – and, so far, there’s little indication that selling directly to consumers has worked. Along comes a high-profile band such as Radiohead which embraces the direct model, and the music business suddenly appears poised for massive change.
Truth be told, the music industry is no closer to finding the holy online grail than it was last week even if a few artists have decided to try something different. As long as the RIAA continues to hunt down P2P users, and as long as the music labels insist on charging 99 cents or a $1.29 or a $1.59 per track, do not expect to see the music industry change that much.
For some rational thought, check out TechDirt, which boldly and correctly suggests that digital music should be free. What a radical thought – giving away a product that you’ve sold for decades. But TechDirt really hits the hammer on the nail – or is it the nail on the hammer? – by stressing that free is only part of the business mix.
What free does is give bands and labels a tremendous marketing tool to sell concert tickets, merchandise, special boxed sets, and DVDs while attracting traffic to Web sites where you can sell advertising.
Let’s take concert tickets as an example of the new business model. While consumers balk at paying 99 cents for a digital track, many think nothing of spending $20 to $250 to see a band they like. It’s supply and demand. Artists can only tour so much so there are a finite number of tickets available. The more demand, the more you can theoretically charge. And what makes concerts so popular and lucrative is it’s a personal experience rather than a digital commodity.
The smart bands and labels will stop thinking about the problems with P2P, and start focusing on how to engage more consumers. If it means giving away free music to generate more interest and jump-start other ways to generate revenue, that’s great. And if what Radiohead, Oasis and Nine Inch Nails are now doing changes how the music business operates, that’s even better.
For more thoughts, check out Virtual Economics, which points out that Canada’s Barenaked Ladies have been quietly and successfully going direct through an artist-owned-IP model. Mathew Ingram had a post earlier this week about a Yahoo executive, Ian Rogers who thinks a new approach must be adopted. Here’s a link to Rogers’ blog and his thoughts.
4 Comments
Although I don’t like their music, Radiohead and 9 Inch are pretty smart. Besides, private peer to peer is slowly catching on (as it’s 100% legal) and applications like GigaTribe are making it easier and easier for friends to share entire folders of files, including albums: http://www.gigatribe.com
If the record industry would embrace the technology and get creative like the artists they would be making more money. They tend to focus on the negative to create some sort of scare tactic and the results have been, well, negative!
What did you mean when you said “there’s little indication that selling directly to consumers has worked”?
It certainly seems to from what I can see. When a band doesn’t need the labels and continues to succeed that seems to be an indication it *does* work? Marillion fund their album production entirely from pre-orders since their first experiment in 1999 and haven’t looked back.
Why do you think it hasn’t worked?
Interesting, what I find a little strange, though, is that two days after he released his news post about foregoing a label he released information on selling y34rz3r0r3mix3d through Interscope records…hmmm.
One Trackback
[...] You can read the rest of this blog post by going to the original source, here [...]