Yesterday’s big news about Radiohead got Bob Mould, late of Husker Du and Sugar and now releasing records under his own name, thinking about possibly embracing non-traditional pricing models for a forthcoming album of his (not his next one, though; that’s coming out via Anti- next year). On his blog, he outlined some alternate fee structures:
…if I were to abandon the traditional model, would you support my work? And if so, what model would be acceptable? Here’s three that I have long thought are reasonable. Please be mindful of the following expenditures: studio cost, musician fees, equipment upgrades, rent and utilities, web site maintenance, management, publicist, other professional services. My parts and labor.
Individual songs, $1 – 2
When I finish a song, you are notified by e-mail. You are directed to a secure site, some sort of unique password is generated, and you download the DRM-free file.Album length release, $10 – 20
When I finish a group of 10 songs, you are notified by e-mail. You are directed to a secure site, some sort of unique password is generated, and you download the DRM-free files.Annual fee, $20 – 40
Artist subsidy. In return for underwriting my work, you receive all music as it is completed, as well as exclusive content (video, artwork, stuff from my storage space). When tours are scheduled, additional consideration at each venue (VIP seating, etc.).
Right now, the “$40 annual fee” option is in first; it actually doesn’t sound all that dissimilar from the fan club model that a lot of larger artists have in place in addition to their current record deals, albeit with fewer middlemen involved (and a lower price than I’d expect, especially when you take into account all of the costs Mould mentions). But like David Card at Jupiter noted, nontraditional models (particularly those like the “subsidy” models outlined by Mould) work a lot better for artists who already have some sort of fanbase already in place; unless there’s an alternate way for people who want to take a flyer on an artist to pay for music by said artist–or at least to check it out for low/possibly even no cost–it might be more difficult to grow the fanbase of people who pay for recordings (as opposed to concerts or other merch) beyond the pool of current fans who have already proven willing to pay a slightly higher premium. I’d probably lay down $40 for a year of music and goodies by Celebration or Pram, but for artists who don’t hold such a sway over me? Probably not, unless the extras were really good (or at least involved the promise of some free food somewhere); after all, I only have so many dollars to allocate, and I suspect most music fans do as well.
Week In Review [Boblog]
Bob Mould [MySpace]
So he’s asking you to pay just as much ($10-20) for the download of an album that you would pay for a physical copy of the same album at your local bookstore. That just doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. The whole attraction of an online download (at least to me)is to circumvent the packaging/shipping/display/promo markup that comes with regular CD sales. I realize that without the support of a label, his personal investments have to be covered by these album sales. But if the “new model” doesn’t reduce the cost of buying music for me, then I certainly don’t support it. The thing about Radiohead’s release is, well, that the music itself is effing cheap. I would certainly pay $5 for almost any album, and would pay $10 from my absolute favorites. But not more than that. The volume of music I consume is far too great to be bought at $10-12 per album. I realize also that Radiohead can do what they are doing because they make up the money from touring. But isn’t that the key component that makes the “new” model work? The ability to make revenue outside of record sales?
I’d pay Bob $40 a year just to stay away from the electro-rock he’s been pumping out lately. More songs like “Paralyzed” and “Hoover Dam” please!
Fair point. I was excitable, and started throwing some numbers around this morning. I agree $20 seems a lot, compared to $10. The ‘new model” has many of the same costs as the “old model”. All of the production costs of making an album are the same, regardless of delivery method. There are other similar costs that pass through to the consumer. Banner ads cost money. Hyping music to mp3 blogs costs money. Server load and web design cost money. Brand name cereal at eye level costs more than generic cereal on the bottom shelf. (Why do I sometimes feel like I’m the only musician saying these things? I know how uncool it sounds, but really. If you’ve already sold your work to a label, be a little supportive of the folks who wrote your paycheck, OK?)
I am thoroughly encouraged by the responses to the subsidy scenario. I am encouraged by the dialogue in general – it’s good to hear what people are thinking, and what they think is fair.
And, more power to Radiohead, if they can make this work. They do have the advantage of years of heavy investment by the big label. They also have a strong connection with their audience, and the years of goodwill should help them make a success of this experiment.
Do I pay before I hear the songs? If I’m supposed to pay according to value, how do I do this if I haven’t heard the songs?
That’s it! That’s the brilliant new business model we’ve been seeking all along: pay our least favorite artists never to go near a studio ever again. An additional fee will have their masters publicly destroyed. We’ll call the site noTunes. And then sell the never-publishing to Michael Jackson.
Musicquizking, you’re our hero, the next Mark Cuban. We salute you!
@bobmould: Good point. Sometimes its heasy to forget the internet doesn’t run for free. I actually love the idea of subscribing to an artist’s content for an annual fee, as long as its fair, and also as long as I’m assured to get my money’s worth. This obviously would suck for bands that take 4 years to put out an album, and the schlock they put out in between I would never pay for anyway. And what an easy way to cross promote your concert revenues by promising VIP access to seating, etc!
@SomeSound-MostlyFury: Yeah, that’s right! You tell Bob Mould to his face that you want to price music like it’s tube socks because you love it sooo much.
@okiedoke:
Mark Cuban? I love it!