TheCapitalClinic

Thank you for Authoring another piece of Business Art. I don't really "get it", but I hope we continue receiving, "More of This!". Hopefully, as exposure to your "Way" increases; I am brought into understanding the monetary, business function of My, Our, music.

HHWLwWWC~SivleRane

I posted the following as blog in part inspired by this post:

Six reasons to BUY music that you like but have "downloaded for free".

1-Regardless of your initial intention to "try out" a piece of music, you've moved on from trying something to regularly consuming it. (Like going to a market offering free samples of food items on toothpicks and liking the free sample enough to deciding to eat several meals a week based on a trip to the free sample table.)

2-If you like only one song out of the ten on an album you now have a chance to vote for that direction with your wallet in a way you couldn't 5 years ago. Musician are very interested to know which of the songs people like and the surest measure is where they will show that support with 99 cents. (If you really like it when the blues band did a 10 minute prog rock epic you should let them know so that they don't just move on to just writing more standard blues.)

3-With bands that aren't on major labels it is no longer true that the band won't see most of the money from a record. Today when you buy 2 or three songs from any site like Fuzz or iTunes the band is making the same amount as they made when the entire CD was sold on a major for $15. So yes, your 99 cents makes a difference for them. (Just think of it as buying the band a 6 pack of beer when you buy a whole album of ten songs. Who wouldn't want to buy a band they like a few beerz.)

4-Don't pretend you're doing anything but stealing. You're taking something unearned and enjoying the benefits of it without paying the cost. (Just because it's a file on a computer doesn't mean it doesn't have an owner. If a hacker stole your bank card information by making a copy of a file on your computer I don't think you'd argue that he had a right to do so since you've still got that file on your machine and all he did was made a copy of it when he's emptied your bank account.)

5-It's 99 cents.

Really.

Just 99 cents.

In Miami you'll spend $10 to buy one beer at a bar on South Beach. And that's after you've paid $15 to get in and $15 to park. (I think 99 cents for a song you love is a true bargain in every way.)

6-Don't be a dick. If the music collection you love so much hasn't been paid for you are a dick. Or possibly an asshole. Is that what you want to be? (Make it uncool for your friends to be thieves.)

-Tooker
Marqui Adora

JT, Your specific points are well taken [except the last one {ouch!}, which, while true, gets away somewhat from the notion of honor and grace in the artist/fan "social transaction" where I think Fricke and Jeff were headed].

In addition to this notion of a voluntary act in support of musicians and art [or honor given in small increments by a multitude], I think there are further productive areas to explore regarding sharing in the penumbra of a broader artist/fan "social transaction" rather than a specific one-off purchase and sale transaction. This is in the area of sharing "third party" revenues that are derivitive of the "social transaction" [such as sharing in revenues from music discovery, sharing ad revenues, and so on]; but I will save this topic for another occasion.

In the meantime, I hope more artists and music fans can see the benefits of using this platform as the next step in translating Fricke and Jeff's [and the rest of the Fuzz team's] bold vision of honor given for honor received into things very concrete like a $.99 "honorarium" from time to time from fans to artists, which if the notion really takes hold in growing aggregation could become a meaningful part [but realistically not all] of an artist;s livelihood, to supplement touring or playing in local scenes - notwithstanding your previous "gig math calculations for bands in the early stages of the digital revolution, and merch sales.

I do my best to financially support the artists I like in one capacity or another. I think this new business model poses the challenge to artists to be more available to their fans for social interaction, either at a show or via Fuzz or a Fuzz-like site. The more fans feel involved and connected, the greater incentive for them to invest a little. Having just put out a record, I'm pleasantly surprised that there are fans out there who want to buy the music, and furthermore, buy the actual CD. Speaking from that side, I genuinely feel excited about each individual purchase.

Will/JT/SR, I think we are onto something that has far-reaching consequences if we could refine for specificity and action Fricke/Jeff's "social transaction/ritual-honor" notions and we get real traction. Taking off of what was just blogged, here are a few specitics just for a start:

1. Fans should spend $.99 [less than the cost of a financial newspaper or a cup of joe] after they have really enjoyed listening to some free downloads.

2. It's up to the Artists to determine whether to "stream" their works or "download" them and how much to charge for their downloads. Their work is their property to do with what they will.

3. A "social transaction" implies a two-way connection. [It is an empirical fact that one tends to buy music from artists who peronalize their relationships].

While my number 6 might not be polite it does have an important place within Honor and Grace.

Other concepts of Honor always hold a consequence for any action that is dishonorable and to me you can focus on positive things while fully acknowledging the negatives at the same time.

While it might be true that someone stealing your favorite chair might really open up the space of your living room I don't think that would be your first thought when it was stolen by a friend. I think a friend offering a suggestion that you do the same thing would be different because the intentions and methods would be fully integrated with having your permission and acknowledged consent.

In the non-digital part of society stealing is stealing and thieves are not trusted or respected by those who might learn of their pilfering. This social component is very important and societies that lack it are doomed. The broken window theory that if you leave a window broken in a neighborhood its social consequences are very different then if it is immediately fixed. This idea needs to regain foothold in the new world of online ideas.

My strongly worded suggestion was that somehow this sense of social and moral forthrightness has been reduced because the location of the theft is in the land of ones and zeros instead of a store or someone's home.

All social changes require both a positive and a negative component.

The positive in this case is pointed out in 2,3 and 5.
-The power to influence the art you enjoy.
-The power to support the artist to continue seeking his art and influencing the world in a direction you can relate to.
-The ability to purchase art for the lowest cost ever. Really. Ever.

The negatives are 1,4 and 6 and need to be pointed out as well.
-Something gained through fraud.
-Theft not out of need but want. (But even a "need" would still be theft.)
-Using the lack of physical evidence to commit a crime no one would respect in the real world.

For moral principles like Honor and Grace to have any lasting value it must have a consequence for deviation from it's founding precepts.

The ugliness of humanity is largely kept in check by any given societies social norms for good and the negative consequences of those things that are prohibited by the society.

Let's make sure good behavior is rewarded but at the same time bad behavior must not be ignored.

John, what can I say? Of course, you are right. I give up!

quote: Lynx

I'd like to move to a model like that - that's what I was going for when I put up the donation buttons on my site - but I think in retrospect what was lacking was the human interaction and the mutual acknowledgment that something has been given and something else received, and that compensation is in order.. which is very difficult to do over the internet since obviously the human element is missing in that kind of a venue.

Lynx, Your specific example is most instructive and raises the key issue that the "Donation button" approach by itself is probably not going to be enough, now [as you have experienced] or ever [as I would like to elaborate on below].

I think Fricke's notion of buying/selling music as a "social transaction" might be fleshed out in its component parts as follows to provide further clues regarding a new way forward in the artist/fan relationship in the digital era:

1. social - means that the relationship is one of a broader artist/fan relationship based on interaction which enhances rather than depersonalizes the human element. As you point out, the internet is a kind of venue in which the human element is missing. However, the internet, properly developed, CAN be used as a vehicle in the positive sense to promote human interaction rather than create a greater sense of separation. Thus, with the data management tools at sites like Fuzz, artists can for the first time know on a real time basis who their fans are and what kind of music they are responding to, and then in a real time basis communicate with their fans [to be sure sometimes a healthy distance is also needed, but that is the artist's choice].

2. transaction - suggests that a "quid pro quo" relationship is still part of the deal. It's just that rather than a one-off purchase and sale event, what is given for what is received takes on a broader "social" dimension more akin to, say, being a member of a group where certain rituals or customs are observed or the reason for coming together are abandoned. Thus, if you come to eat at the round-table you are expected on occasion to bring some food.
Transaction means there must be reciprocity in the relationship.

Taken together, the terms "social" and "tranaction" actually connote something more, which I think is what made the hairs on Jeff's arm stand-up. In the old days of physical record sales, in fact the one-off I, artist, make the record, and you, fan, buy it approach to developing the industry had a tendency to create a hierarchical I-thou structure of marketing hype and fan mind-meld [of super-star and adoring fans] more than a powerful, artist/fan "social relationship" based on mutual respect and reciprocity.

To be sure, the notion of "social transaction" or ritual honor, or whatever you want to call it, is far from being part of the accepted norm at present. But what I think is exciting about what Fricke and Jeff articulated and what is being tested [albeit with not much success for now] by folks like you with your "free downloads" is to develop a firm culture of this broader artist/fan relationship.

We should explore further what can be done to consolidate the concept of ritual honor [or whatever is the most resonating term] so it does become part of the culture rather than the all-too occasional surprise that a "donation" is today.

I think what we have be developing is in fact the farthest thing possible away from the notion of "charity" and so even the characterisation of something as a "donation" box just doesn't cut it. We are in search something entirely different here in respect of Fricke's "social transaction" or "honor given for honor received".

Although it may well have its place in society in other contexts, the idea of charity to support the work of an artist taken to its root implications diminishes rather than enriches the artistic imperative.

More please.

This is such a great conversation. Everyone here has made some very valid points. For me as an artist, the one thing that is missing from my promotional list is a fan club.

When I was much younger, I almost always found an address to write to on the back of or on the sleeve of LPs I purchased by artists I admired. Upon writing to these addresses, about 95% of the time I would recieve something very nice in the mail from the artist. Usually it was a signed 8x10 glossy photo, or a poster, or tour dates, a signed form letter, or sometimes a combination of these. These things worked to endear me to the artists I liked, and I would continue to buy their music.

Today, in the digital world, we as artists have that capicity and more to endear fans to our music, it's whether we choose to utilize them.
Back in the day, once in a while the artist's record company would issue a free 45rpm record bundled with the LP as part of a promotion effort. Today, it is on CDs and DVDs where these extras can be found. All of us know by now that with many major artists, the release of a CD is one thing, but they also release a "bonus" version of the same music with extras like additional songs, outtakes, and live concert or studio video footage.

Top that off with not just an online fan club, but an interactive one, and there lies a recipe for some success for the artist, and satisfaction and endearment for the fan. And a fan club can grow so large, that it can take more than just the band members to keep up with it, and respond to all the inquiries.

I'm not saying that this is a cure-all in the digital world, but I do think that it is something that is part of the myriad of tasks to be performed by artists to insure that the "social transaction" discussed above stays intact.

Here is another point made by a pro that is relevant to this blog [edited for space]:

You know CapitalClinic I was thinking of something else that I haven't heard talked about. The young music market say 12 to 25 or so, has been raised on the idea of music is of so little value it should be free. So, that leaves quite a problem for the major label players and frankly everyone else.

If the people you market to don't believe in paying you've got a tough row to hoe as they say even if you develop awareness. So, it seems to me the real business of music is in the older demographic. By older, I don't mean old of course, but....30 to 55 or so. (If we live 'til we're 120, we've got a ways to go, right?).

These are the people that were raised buying music from the artist's they loved rather than ripping it for free. (Dare I say stealing.) I buy the music I like. Young people might buy music if they can chisel the money out of mom or dads pocket at the mall, but nobody invests in the promotion of the older artist because they're old. But, the audience they might attract will be buyers not stealers more often than not.

Remember to turn your, might? into MIGHT. ya know power up! Sometimes we don't take risks because we 'might' fail, but we might not.

cousinotes