{"id":167,"date":"2003-10-01T20:45:06","date_gmt":"2003-10-02T01:45:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/2003\/10\/new-music-business-models\/"},"modified":"2003-10-01T20:45:06","modified_gmt":"2003-10-02T01:45:06","slug":"new-music-business-models","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/2003\/10\/new-music-business-models\/","title":{"rendered":"new music business models"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>i&#8217;m a couple days behind,  and have a lot to say on these subjects, but i don&#8217;t have the time for my traditional-length rant, so this will be just a couple quick hits today, despite the rich body of new material that i have to riff on&#8230;.<\/p>\n<p>the music business discussion has expanded significantly, with a <a href=\"http:\/\/bigpicture.typepad.com\/comments\/2003\/09\/oligopoly.html\" class=\"broken_link\">response<\/a> from a new player, and a few <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacificavc.com\/blog\/2003\/09\/30.html#a378\" class=\"broken_link\">updates<\/a> at due diligence that touch on another subject i seem to address here a lot lately (language problems).  tim has brought in another <a href=\"http:\/\/www.kk.org\">kevin<\/a> (kelly), who has a year-old <a href=\"http:\/\/www.kk.org\/writings\/music.php\">view<\/a> of the future of music, and shares an interesting email <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacificavc.com\/blog\/2003\/10\/01.html#a382\" class=\"broken_link\">conversation<\/a> with the rest of us.<\/p>\n<p>the quick points i&#8217;d like to make on all this new material:<\/p>\n<p>i still think musicians are monopolies and so i disagree with <a href=\"http:\/\/bigpicture.typepad.com\/comments\/2003\/09\/oligopoly.html\" class=\"broken_link\">barry ritholtz<\/a>.  they may be incredibly weak monopolies, but art is not fungible, if only because it&#8217;s a completely personal valuation.  even the best elvis impersonators are not elvis.<\/p>\n<p>on the other hand, barry concludes his comments with an observation that i do agree with:  &#8220;<em>They certainly arent prepared for a 500 bands selling 20,000 copies each, yet thats where the music itself wants to go . . .<\/em>&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>music, as a business, is substitutable.  again, the value is in the hands of the audience &#8211; a stones concert ticket is worth $700, and an open-mic-night at a local coffee shop may be worth a $4 coffee &#8211; but the real issue here is not the value-in-dollars but the <a href=\"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/2003\/09\/you_cant_afford_all_this_music.html\"> value-in-attention<\/a>.  if a movie feels like a better way for me to spend two hours, i can&#8217;t be listening to the new britney album at the same time (unless, of course, britney&#8217;s gotten her tracks into the movie&#8230;)<\/p>\n<p>this means the business of music cannot be studied in isolation &#8211; it does have to be viewed in the context of the broader industry of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.businesspundit.com\/archives\/000628.html\" class=\"broken_link\">entertainment<\/a>, but again there are degrees and nuances that defy ready analysis.  do captive audiences count? does elevator music or music in the dentists&#8217; chair count?   does background count, or does it have to be an active listener?  if a song is in a soundtrack, or a singer becomes an actor, what&#8217;s the appropriate &#8220;attention split&#8221;?  did you go see the movie for a great story, enimem&#8217;s acting ability, or because you&#8217;re an eminem fan and have every album?  we&#8217;ll never be able to quantify all these pieces.<\/p>\n<p>and now for a couple pushes in new directions:<\/p>\n<p>one thing that i haven&#8217;t seen discussed at all in these pieces (so far) is that the &#8220;pop star&#8221; has more than an economic\/business-model function.  there is an important social aspect to the big hits and big stars, because they give us a common touchstone in culture (even if you hate them, they are pervasive enough that you know them).  i don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re going to just &#8220;go away&#8221; and be replaced with hundreds of &#8220;mini-stars.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>another important point that&#8217;s also missing is that most of this discussion has revolved around the &#8220;high end of the power curve&#8221; &#8211; and that&#8217;s a valuable place to start (if only because of the social implications &#8211; we can all talk about the stones).  but it is just a few players, with pretty much the same model, and really doesn&#8217;t capture the breadth of &#8220;creative business models&#8221; that are already at play in this crazy business of music.<\/p>\n<p>and finally, there&#8217;s the &#8220;non-music&#8221; markets that are worthy of discussion.  it&#8217;s not just musicians-trying-to-be-actors, it&#8217;s merchandise, in the broadest sense.  it&#8217;s branding and pitching and other revenue that comes not from the music, but from the social status that came through the music.  is &#8220;music business&#8221; (at least at the top end) an end unto itself, or just a tool to leverage on your way to a new basketball shoe?<\/p>\n<p>i do hope to get back to some of these points and write in some detail, but for now&#8230; back to the real world, and let the blogologue continue.<\/p>\n<p><strong>update<\/strong>:  barry has commented that there are interesting models, but i was trying to point out that they (and this echoes one of tims earlier approaches) generally don&#8217;t apply to the top of the curve where we&#8217;ve been holding most of this discussion.  i think it&#8217;ll be very difficult to convince the stones or britney to get into the magnatunes or weedshare models.  important questions to bring up in this context are:  can any of the new models create a new pop star?  should they be able to?  is there a fundamental incompatibility in these models?  does that matter?<\/p>\n<p>tim rightfully points out that he did address the non-monetary social issues of &#8220;star power&#8221; &#8211; just to refresh my own memory, and make it painfully obvious, here&#8217;s part of his comment:  &#8220;<em>This kind of high grossing big act isn&#8217;t going to go away. There&#8217;s always a top end of the power law curve. And there&#8217;s a social role for them: For the 15-25 year old segment that are the dominant buyers, they are objects of common attention that symbolize group membership, a sort of media plumage that&#8217;s part of the adolescent socialization process.<\/em>&#8221;  sorry about that &#8211; we&#8217;re playing the same tune on this one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>i&#8217;m a couple days behind, and have a lot to say on these subjects, but i don&#8217;t have the time for my traditional-length rant, so this will be just a couple quick hits today, despite the rich body of new material that i have to riff on&#8230;. the music business discussion has expanded significantly, with [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[10],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rojisan.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}