Guerrilla Marketing: Making Money Internet

State of the indy music industry looks rosy, so why all the doom-and-gloom about music?

Cory Doctorow at 11:30 PM Wednesday, Dec 1, 2010

TuneCore's Jeff Price has a six-part series analyzing the financial state of the music industry from the point of view of an independent artist. Price offers compelling reasons to believe that although the labels are experiencing a severe downturn, artists as a group are earning more than ever, thanks to the Internet.

I have a feeling that the record industry's rejoinder to this would be, yes, more artists are earning some money from their music, and all told, there's more money going to artists than ever before, but there are fewer opportunities for an artist to sign up to a label like ours that controls so much of the distribution channel that we can guarantee large sums of money for these lottery winners.

In other words, the music industry today is much less winner-take-all, with the benefits diffused to a larger pool of artists at the expense of the few who did so well under the old system. This is what I mean when I say a good copyright system is one that encourages the broadest-possible engagement in culture: more music, from more musicians, reaching more people, at more price-points, in more formats. It's a win for free expression and for art, but it's a loss for some artists and the institutions that supported them.

I don't celebrate those losses: it's terrible to think of people who loved and lived for music losing their jobs (most of the people at labels aren't greedy tools deciding to sue 40,000 music fans; greedy tool-dom is confined to a few powerful decisionmakers). It's sad to think of the tiny pool of musicians who did so well taking a loss (though before we weep for them too much, remember that yesterday's winners are well situated to get even richer from merch, performance and licensing, even without the archaic recorded music industry and its shiny bits of plastic).

But copyright's purpose should be to get as much art made and available as possible -- it's not a full-employment scheme for administrators and marketing people and record-store clerks; it's not a lottery that makes millionaires out of a couple of lucky artists. There's nothing wrong with it doing those things, but they aren't why it's there: it's there to fuel expression and art.

The reality is:

* More musicians are making money off their music now then at any point in history.

* The cost of buying music has gotten lower but the amount of money going into the artist's pocket has increased.

* There are more people listening, sharing, buying, monetizing, stealing and engaging with music than at any other point in history.

* There are more ways for an artist to get heard, become famous and make a living off their music now than at any point in the history of this planet.

* Technology has made it possible for any artist to get distribution, to get discovered, to pursue his/her dreams with no company or person out there making the editorial decision that they are not allowed "in".

* The majority of music now being created and distributed is happening outside of the "traditional" system.

And to reiterate, sales are up...

Seeing that the Nielsen stats are readily accessible and accepted as legitimate, why then are we left with the impression that music sales and revenue are down? The simple answer is album sales and overall gross revenue from music sales (CD and downloads) are down. The increase in music purchases comes from the people buying individual songs. The decrease in revenue comes from a $0.99 song costing less than a $16.98 physical album as well as fewer purchases of physical CDs.

The State of The Music Industry & the Delegitimization of Artists

(via EFF Deep Links)

(Image: Diesel Sweeties tee)

The New York Times ran a page one story today about how Silicon Valley appears to be in the midst of a new bubble, driven by the enthusiasm that venture capitalists and angels have for social networking and mobile apps businesses.

It cited the recent reports about how Twitter’s value has been pegged at $4 billion in its rumored round of investment. The story also pointed to the more than $5 billion valuation of Zynga, the creator of social games such as FarmVille on Facebook. And it pointed to Google’s willingness to pay $6 billion for Groupon, which was valued at $1.35 billion only eight months ago. Groupon evidently rejected the offer on Friday because it believes it is worth more.

Other signs, the newspaper said: A new pack of startups are coming in behind: Yammer raised $25 million; Tumblr raised $30 million; GroupMe raised $9 million; and Path raised $2.5 million. Those deals are causing some bearish investors to shake their heads.

The topic of a reinflating bubble has become a popular one at recent events such as the Web 2.0 Summit before Thanksgiving. There, John Doerr, managing director at VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said he believes we are in the midst of another tech boom driven by the vast changes in society caused by social networking and mobile technology. Bing Gordon, a partner at Kleiner Perkins, said that the firm hired Wall Street analyst Mary Meeker as part of an attempt to stay on top of the coming internet boom.

Fred Wilson, who was quoted in the New York Times story, wants to throw cold water on the froth. A partner at Union Square Ventures, Wilson had the foresight to invest in Twitter when Kleiner Perkins made the mistake of failing to do so (forcing Kleiner to try to invest now at a much higher valuation). He said in a debate with Doerr at the Web 2.0 Summit that we’re in the midst of a bubble. Angel investor Chris Sacca was also quoted in the Times as saying he has put a freeze on investments until startup valuations come down.

But the paper notes this is not a stock market bubble, since none of the companies mentioned have gone public. They’re raising big rounds from venture capitalists. Then they raise even larger secondary rounds from big private equity investors such as DST. Those investments allow them to keep growing their businesses without going public. And the outcome for many of these companies is to be acquired by the likes of Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Google, or Apple. Those companies are sitting on mountains of cash. If the stock market crashes, those acquirers will be hurt as will the valuations of startups, but the acquisitions will probably continue.

Another difference is that in the age of Web 2.0, web-based companies are able to amass audiences very quickly — Zynga has more than 215 million monthly active users for its games even though it is just shy of four years old — and become profitable early on. By contrast, startups such as Pets.com in the frothy days of the dotcom bubble had no chance of making money. Angel investors are feeling the heat because they are getting priced out of a lot of early-stage deals as venture capitalists try harder to find “the next Facebook” earlier.

Which side of the fence are you on? The bears may eventually be right. But they may also miss out on a lot of money-making in the meantime if they sit on the sidelines of this latest gold rush. Please take our poll and comment on why you voted the way you did.

Next Story: WikiLeaks documents lay bare vast hacking attempts by Chinese leaders Previous Story: Week in review: Amazon takes down Wikileaks

bench craft company scam

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Making Money Internet

No comments:

Post a Comment