Does digital media need a centralized distribution model?
For generations the large record companies not only offered access to the means of recording but more importantly to the vast distribution chain that put records into stores and on the radio. Napster added gasoline to an already smoldering fire. Just like the time your uncle Ron poured half a can of lighter fluid onto the charcoal grill, the resulting flare up took off more than a few eyebrows but should not have surprised anyone watching.
I recall seeing the circa 1999 and 2000 interviews with Chuck D of Public Enemy declaring the age of the major labels to be nigh. The promise, according to CD was of a limitless variety of music all directly from the artist at half the cost – if not free. He got it right, the revolution is being downloaded. But just where do I find all these artists? How do I find what I want and get involved with other artists who may share similar genre? In many ways it has been a piecemeal process to find new music outside the standard web portal stores. (It is interesting to note the number of artists who recanted support once it was their music being ‘shared’ for free).
Sure, there is\was MySpace which started out a place for musicians to stake out a place on the web to directly connect with fans and build followings out of local shows. This network of fans could connect in this early version of a social network site to share their thoughts on the newest songs, the show last night and find others going to a local show. Prior to this fans of marginal or indie bands often communicated and ‘gathered’ via pen pal groups or through the pages of fanzines like Maximum Rock n’ Roll. MySapce provides some means of selling hard copies or downloads but unless the band page linked to other bands your ability to find new music was limited to what the labels put out or fans called out in the chat boards. In essence you had know where to go, to go.
Today we have ‘intelligent’ streaming players who learn what your likes are and can build playlist(s) of ‘related bands’ based on your input – Pandora has the Genome, Last.fm has Audioscrobbler-(all provide links to purchase single MP3s or albums).. Facebook provides the ability to give visitor’s music links and streaming video of the bands you like-(and purchase links). Bloggers can embed tools like StreamPad to share your favorite music. While the number of collective sites is growing, all are still struggling to stand out amongst the haze of information. Each has its set of fans who evangelize promises of providing the most comprehensive access through links and social networking. Even Amazon has long attempted provide outreach based on the ‘others who purchased ‘x’ also purchased….(Y & Z). In Truth none of these stand out clearly above all others.
iTunes has similar micro models like this but it is just a distribution point and not a label or content producer… yet. The record companies have only begrudgingly joined forces with Apple because it was the first model to provide some legal and protected means of establishing a foothold where the pirates reigned. And for the most part it is still a lonely outpost of mainstream music sales. The labels have long bemoaned the margins provided by Apple and have fought – unsuccessfully – to pry more out of iTunes and to get a rise in prices.
Ian Rogers at FISTFULAYEN has proposed an interesting restructuring which he hinges nothing less than the survival of labels. IR’s proposal in a nut shell is to utilize the mature power tools of record companies, mainly –distribution, marketing as well as A&R. One large label would be broken down in to smaller outfits that focus on specific markets \ genres. The micro labels could develop larger market bands on which dozens or hundreds of like genre – (or cross gene)- bands could be hung or cross referenced upon. Add in a centralized payment utility and any label could begin to compete with the market share iTunes has.
It could also shift a measure of control back to the suits. When we finally enter into a post net neutrality world, this power shift could mean influence on traffic and bandwidth toward their favor.
But is it really necessary? Can the decentralized direct artist to fan model provide an adequate income to survive if not flourish. In other words, is there a way provide income where a day job is not necessary?
Kevin Kelly seems to think so. Mr. Kelly discusses the concept of ‘1000 True Fans’ on, one of his several blogs, the Technium http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php. The basic concept is one where an artist can make a comfortable living by tending to a 1000 fans who are dedicated to buying the music, subscribing to the blogs \fan club, buying the T-shirts and going to the shows. To earn a base income of $100,000 it would only take each True Fan spending $100 a year, which is a very manageable number. The gross number does not take into account overhead of servers, ISP and equipment but it is still a workable model. Mr. Kelly also addresses this in his entry ‘The Case against 1000 True Fans’. The main argument being that many are not looking to just survive but to sell platinum numbers of units. I have begun to believe that such aspirations immense rock n’ roll wealth are to be relegated to the stories of yore. As Gene Simmons so emphatically stated during his conversation on the Henry Rollins Show (IFC) ‘…its over, the industry has been killed by you (points at screen) downloading illegal copies of music… There are no more rock stars…”.
Having subscribed to Indie fanzines such as The Big TakeOver for years I tend to concur with the tongue, It is the niche market indie bands who will find solid ground of continued production and income, just not millions of dollars a year. Regardless it is now possible for artist to ‘live off the grid’ of major labels –or any label at all.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment