Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You seem to be trying to fit the past into the future and it doesn't wash anymore.
you're assuming that music sales actually matters on a global scale and will redifine how the the world does business. That's a big ask.
another possibility is that music may cease to matter. houses, cars food, and socks will go on being sold exactly as they have been using the past tried and true method and music and media will simply luck out.
That's another possibility isn't it?Being involved in media and media distribution it's tempting to think that what we do really matters to people but even in our own life time we've seen music go from being a life focusing thing, all consuming, to having not really much to say, a mild diversion.
community dances used to be all the rage back in our parents day, not so much now.video games, souped up cars and gang warfare have more appeal to the next generation. maybe recorded music will just be marginalised, only important to aging old fogies who will slowly die out.
It was never about and grand desire to define models.
that's might brave of you to speak on behalf of everyone involved in the concept from raioheads perspective. Are you sure you can say on behalf of their entire team that none of them were hoping they'd see a solid move toward a viable stable model, embraced by a majority of music listeners?
I'd counter that by saying there were a lot of people looking to the model to work successfully so they could move over to using it. Are you going to deny that?
We're talking about in rainbows cos you're making statements about its resounding success without acknowledging its comparative success in the world of music sales models.
all you've got to do is acknowledge the other side of the argument and it all moves on :)
come on fonzie, do it.
-
Nope but ask me again in 5 years when its been reworked 500 times by smart management
That's not much of an analysis or an answer.
you could simply say you have no idea how things will go, it's too soon to call.
-
established musician in a position to funD, release ...
-
That's like pointing at the Wright Flyer and saying "people will never fly across the Atlantic..I mean look at it!"
The difference being we've had many hundreds (thousands even) of years experience in business models so we can look at what happened in the radiohead experiment and analysis its success. you appear to be happy to leave your analysis of it at "it worked for them". Many others want to see how it applies to the world of music marketing, extrapolate how it can fit into the world we live in and consider the implications of the experiment.
My understanding of what we know about this experiement is
is a good promotional thing so long as you're the first person to do it, press will drive attention to your new product. The only down side of that is you need a new novelty idea for each and every new album released in a year.
- people aren't as informed about the worth of a recording as the music industry would have hoped.
- people mostly aren't as 'into' artists as to pay anything to them given the opportunity to pay nothing. The honesty box experiment showed up how dishonest we are as a civilisation and perhaps this is the most disappointing aspect of the experiment. we all hoped it would show a better result to prove how decent, caring and honest we all are.
- established musicians in a position to fun release and promote their own record are in a stronger position than those at ground level with not profile, money or knowledge.
Kitty hawk lead to trans atlantic flight but left as it was it didn't get you from new york to london or anywhere near it.
directing such a comparison to my comments is miles off base. -
They claim they made more money from In Rainbows than from every previous release combined. It's a big claim though.
my question which you avoided was regarding the 2nd, 3rd etc people who you say have used the pay us what you think its worth model.
how's that working out for them when the novelty factor and the free publicity that came with it has gone. -
offer at least a possibility
what's the difference between "at least a possibility" and "unlikely".
they're both in the same ball park. its not really a case of glass half full or empty, more like hope and wishful thinking.
I'm not saying there won't be a solution but I sincerely doubt radiohead's model is it and so do the band no doubt which would explain them using other methods to collect sales one they'd gleaned the media exposure from the experiment, a media exposure that will not be available to others cos the story is old.
-
actually the byrne/eno idea does have merit,
essentially they're manufacturing the appearance of good will while really only delivering permanent "radio" of their album.
radio in that it is constant broadcast hooked to one type of device in this case a computer with broad band internet connection.
actually byrne eno have just reinvented myspace with their whole album up there.re radiohead are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
do you think its a model that could sustain 10000 new titles a year? -
or at least a sliver of an inkling of a germ of an idea
:) I'll take that as confirmation that you are ever the optimist, although in these cases more wishful thinking.
I don't see why you object to acknowledging that as a way forward for music radioheads and byrne/eno's moves are novelty work arounds unlikely to be a global solution.
I'll happily acknowledge they worked for the bands, if you can acknowledge they're unlikely to solve music's problem.
-
if they were working on a plan for the ages.
you're response to critism of their model has been it worked for them and there's is the only point of view that matters, taking a step back from their personal victory there is the point of view that looks at this experiment as a sustainable and viable business model. you're saying that not an important analysis to make. I think that's the most important analysis to make and on that level radioheads experiment was a failure because it proved that under an honesty system the public an not be relied to act honorably.
Radiohead reaped the reward of novelty, they used up most of that value and what's left is a void of people trying to figure out the next best move cos radiohead didn't discover the "second coming of christ", they made themselves some cash, they expanded their own profile and they consumed the novelty of the model so the second, third and forth people to try it will yield exponentially worse results.mark di somma's comments in sasha's linked article make the most sense
There's nothing wrong with using giveaways to establish scale and demand as long as you recognise those giveaways for what they are: marketing expenditure, not the start of a new way of doing things."
Radiohead's experiment worked for them this once, and good for them, that's nice, but it's wrong to paint it as a roaring success when seen in light of the bigger picture. it's a use once novelty and its just been used. no great savior model for the desperate media owners here unfortunately.
-
can all income be derived from advertising?