Alternative Revenue Models For The Music Industry?
Kudos to Radiohead’s successful experiment in music pricing. Praise to Prince for releasing an album as a free insert in the archaic, decaying newspaper industry. And finally, a high five for 50 Cent who recognizes that “File Sharing Doesn’t Hurt Artists.”
The aftermath of these headlines incited a wave of euphoria among die-hard fans and aspiring musicians worldwide comparable to the British Invasion or Elvis’s first pelvic gyrations on national television. The glory days have returned! Further examination, however, reveals several misleading messages hidden behind the topical glitter coating a DRM-free, file-sharing friendly music industry.
1. 50 cent is a superstar. Tremendous crowds provide tremendous opportunities for profit. During the last half of the 20th century, album sales were the primary offering and thus dominated the revenue pie chart for the music industry. As 50 cent aptly recognized, however, money is shifting toward merchandising. A combination of products - water, shoes, concert tickets, films, and clothing for 50 - account for today’s profit line.
For an unknown artist to earn a living off t-shirts is unfathomable and the patronage of a well-connected producer or executive is still required for success. Look at the following lineage: Wrecking Crew - NWA - Dr. Dre - Eminem - 50 cent. Each artist was hand-picked by an established entertainer and inserted into an existing music making machine. The names may change but the game is still the same.
2. All marketers are liars. Musicians are forced to double as marketing majors and outspoken anti-commercial groups like Radiohead are no different. Their “free” album release was not quite so revolutionary when considering the subpar 160 kbps quality. The popular British band understands people do not want to pay full price for something with diminishing value as a commodity. Poor quality music files are readily available on a number of file-sharing sites, so Radiohead made a slightly more appealing offer with hopes of capitalizing. Worked well, but do they deserve the excessive heralding from bloggers and journalists?
Anyone with an Internet connection can conceivably record an album, but producing an epic concert or stitching an ornate t-shirt still require some expensive tools of production. Way to go Radiohead for misleading the masses.
3. Music provides emotion, not a product. Returning the market value of music…ubiquitous access to recording tools (I tinker with music via my laptop with time as the only capital requirement) diminishes the value of music as a product. Music as a product - or art for that matter - was a relatively short lived concept, beginning with the proliferation of sheet music in New York’s 19th century Tin Pan Alley. With phonographs, cassettes, mini-discs and a host of other dead mediums exhausted, music no longer has a necessary product. The art has aptly returned to its mathematical routes - a string of 0s ans 1s.
So how can labels and artists monetize the remaining emotion inflicted by music? Create a number of artifacts representing the original emotional state induced by the music. Music artifacts will be the CD of the 21st century.
4. The arts are steeped in patronage. The historical attachment of the adjective “struggling” to artist is no coincidence. Deriving money from a creation of the mind that does not mow the lawn, wash the dish, or clean the bathroom is difficult. Beauty is superficial, talent is objective - and the majority of artists are destined to struggle because of these laws of nature.
Michaelangelo’s relationship with the Medici family is a perfect example of classical patronage. If you prefer modern examples - look no further than MC Hammer’s connection to baseball tycoon Charlie Finley. Artists need someone to believe in their abilities, preferably someone with deep pockets.
Filed under: Infonalysis