![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Pay What You Want
Radiohead is riding the wave into the future of alternative business models:
There’s no label or distribution partner to cut into the band’s profits — but then there may not be any profits. Drop In Rainbows‘ 15 songs into the online checkout basket and a question mark pops up where the price would normally be. Click it, and the prompt “It’s Up To You” appears. Click again and it refreshes with the words “It’s Really Up To You” — and really, it is. It’s the first major album whose price is determined by what individual consumers want to pay for it. And it’s perfectly acceptable to pay nothing at all.
I may have written about this in the past, and it only makes sense: download for free on BitTorrent or p2p networks whatever music you like by an artist and then directly send them as much money as its worth to you (feel free to donate me money according to the same principle!). This way lame ass record companies don’t get a single dime. There’s more money in performing and licensing anyway, than CD sales, according to the looks of how things are going…
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Have you ever actually done this? The download - send money idea. I’ve often thought of it, but have worried that sending either a cheque in the post, or a cheque with a note saying ‘I downloaded your album illegally, here’s the cash’ would be not only bizarre, but could be taken as incriminating evidence to be used against me.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Why would you have to say you downloaded anything? Why couldn’t you just send a check?
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Even if I just sent a cheque, that would still seem bizarre. If some unknown cheque came through my letterbox I’d try try and get hold of the person who sent it to find out why.
I think what Radiohead are doing is exciting though, although they are so big they can afford to give away their album for free, it will be interesting to see if anyone else follows suit, especially small bands. It’s also worth noting that they are only releasing it online, they don’t have a CD available (at the moment at least), as far as I know they are the first big band to do this with a whole album.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
If you remember the history of artists, a great deal of great work was done by commision, being paid ahead of time to do a work that was visible by all. I kind of like the idea of collective commision, we pitch in money so the artist can give out work that is available to everybody.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
Yeah, an artist or band could just post a donation link on their site and say “we’re ready to do another album.” Then when they’re done, they just make it available for download. They could even draw up print-out cover slips with lyrics, artwork, and track lists, so you could gussy it up like a store-bought album. Ideally, somewhere along the line this becomes viable enough for many bands (or other artists) to be able to simply produce their work on money donated by fans, and eventually we wouldn’t even have record labels any more. Man, there are so many awesome implications for these kinds of business practices. All we need is the ingenuity to implement them effectively.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 am
The connection here is that they are doing this without a “label or distribution partner”. Otherwise it wouldn’t fly. Because people that are doing things for a cut want their cut.
This is really the same as self publishing a book and offering copies “for a donation”
I wonder about these middle men that are kind of like parasites, if its good to look at them as parasites?
Are they really parasites? Like banks, fund bussinesses by putting them in debt to banks. Is it all totally evil for banks to do that?
maybe it is evil, I am just wondering why its evil. Why is this the dominant way of doing things? Why has it been this way for years?
Why does Ithaca hours, self publishing etc. never really take off?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Yep, that is already happening online. I have seen sites similar to that, though I can’t think of them offhand. But anyway, that is part of my plan: find a way to combine social lending with alternative currency, shared value communities, creative commissions and grants, etc.
Okay, so how do we cultivate and take action upon that ingenuity?
No, it is good to look at men as men and not as parasites.
Not a useful question to ask. I would ask instead: is this the most effective possible method of doing business? And then you have to look at it from the perspectives of the various people involved in it.
Ithaca hours have taken off in Ithaca and elsewhere. You wouldn’t want an alternative currency to become gigantic, I don’t think. That would bleed value out of the community, wouldn’t it? Self-publishing hasn’t taken off - what are you talking about? What is a blog?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 am
So why does this idea excite you, Tim?
Its not “sticking it to the man” that’s not part of it? Do you think that’s has anything to do with Radioheads motivation?
So why are these record companies “Lame ass” and why shouldn’t they “get a single dime?”
So you are asking what is the most effective bussiness practice for people involved in it.
Take away the record companies, then you have a famous band, selling music directly to loyal fans, for whatever they want to retrocatively pay or not pay. Maybe it will work.
Is that exciting because it means anyone can sell music directly to consumers and consumers can pay whatever they want, and then get huge and rich like radiohead, without any middle men like “lame ass record companies” that make lots of money and also promote the label?
It seems like even if it works for radiohead it might still be through the risidual effects of the past efforts of the lame asses.
or has this been a total con all along? That is the way record companies operate.You have a problem with the concept of looking at them as parasites, why are they lame and why shouldn’t they get a dime?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 am
No, it’s not that. It is the notion that people who create art could actually see direct benefits from doing so without having someone else take a cut of it.
Record companies are “lame ass” because they have been engaging in surreptitious practices for several years now to prevent people from actually enjoying music. Few of them seem to realize that they have cannibalized their own industry, rotting it out from the inside because of their addiction to old styles of money-making.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
All kinds of people can create art and ask for donations. Nothing is stopping them. People do it all over the place, street corners subways. They aren’t rock stars though.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Yes, so where does that leave us? How can we apply that on larger scales?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Play the sax on a street corner is pretty large scale, its just not a way to make lots of money and be a famous rock star.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I don’t know that I consider that “large scale” but I do like returning the emphasis of music back to people within the same space celebrating the fact that they have come together. This is the true origin and purpose of music, isn’t it?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Yeah, but when they do that, its kind of assumed that the music might not be that great. I mean it can be great.
If you go back to indigenous communities, living in villages and singing all the time, spontaneously making music. They didn’t have celebrities and rock stars. It was just regular people they knew making music.
I think there is a lot to be said for that. People even a few years ago in the US, would have a piano and have sing alongs sunday afternoon. it was a normal thing.
Rock Stars are products of a bottle neck. Scarcity. Supply and demand. Huge demand, small supply. Evening it it out gives you larger supply and smaller demand.
So yeah, you can say “I am for regular people making music spontaneously and giving it away for free to whoever wants it and if they want to donate some money they can out of their hearts”
But I don’t see how that would produce rockstars.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
You’re right. It shouldn’t produce rockstars. What is a rockstar but an example of absurd inequality among monetary distribution for creative work? What if instead of rockstars we just had a flourishing of small-time “starlets” who weren’t getting fabulously wealthy off their work, but who were able to make enough money just to get by, to enjoy themselves, to create and share their art and find people who loved and appreciated what they are doing?
I really like the direction this conversation is going!
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
[…] I really like this comment from Ted on the Radiohead thread: If you go back to indigenous communities, living in villages and singing all the time, spontaneously making music. They didn’t have celebrities and rock stars. It was just regular people they knew making music. […]
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
So? what do you care if they think your behavior is bizarre? If it’s bizarre at all, it’s bizarre in a good way and if they can’t appreciate that, that’s their stupid problem. But really, every musician knows some people are going to pirate their music. If I were the artist and you sent me a check after doing so, I’d think ‘this guy’s awesome!’ and ’sweet — 100% profit!’. And I would probably try to get hold of you — to thank you! And maybe we’d become friends because of it, who knows?
Good idea!
Exactly. Like with so many things, what originally served a useful purpose, under very different conditions (technological, social, etc.) ends up hanging on way past its time and it becomes the opposite of what it was originally intended to be. What artists used to need record companies for, we can now do as well or better on our own. The exception being perhaps those who once produced good music but are no longer doing so and thus can only keep going in the industry if their labels keep paying to have them force-fed to the masses. That’s why Elton John hates the internet.
You just described my dream perfectly.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Speaking of record labels, there is somewhat of a difference between major labels and indie labels. Most indie labels are just organized shared value communities / mutual hype alliances. Actually I just wrote something about that recently in a comment here.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Yes, exactly! This is really important of an idea to follow-up on and connect to other threads of conversation here.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Yeah, I like the “starlet” model as opposed to the rock star model.
I think it would be MORE competitive in a way and raise the bar on the level of talent and produce better music for people to choose from becauase talent would be all you would have to rely on as opposed to monopolies.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Yeah, totally! But talent would be applied to different areas as well: it would become more important to be a fully functioning business person in addition to handling creative stuff as well…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
hmmmm…
So what if you are an awesome musician and totally suck at bussiness?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Then you’re screwed unless you have people helping you via mutual hype alliances. I have been around enough artists (and am one myself) to know that the whole “I’m creative so I don’t have to know anything about business” line is totally a cop-out. Both art and business are about the same thing: self-mastery.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Cool discussion. I totally relate. I’ve been in a band with the same bunch of guys for the last 17 years. Same team. First, that isn’t very common. We are all DIY, have like 6 CD’s and lots of live material. We came up at a time when the internet possibilities were only developing. If we could have taken advantage since day 1 back in 1991 or whatever, it might have been different. But whatever, we’ve played a lot locally, won contests, etc and had a great time. Now we all have jobs / wives / kids but still stick at it. Even expanded to where we are like the house band for other artists. It rocks. But we never made any money, in fact it costs us to rent a jam space, equipment maintenance, drink beer, etc. I am totally into finding a way to make some money at it, but it’s not apparent. I’ve thought all about internet distrib models, free give aways (which I am all for -> since someone who listens and likes may some day cough up a buck, but if they don’t know u exist than good luck with making any cash in some form) I would only like it to break even / self sustain, no rock star visions at all. I can’t even imagine why I’d want to be a rock star. It would be a lot of fun and I’d love to play for a big audience, but the rest of it is just garbage. side note - I recommend to all this sites readers to check the Bob Marley story out deeply. I am not a reggae / rasta type guy (much), but the whole story of Marley, his beliefs and message (which jibe well with the kind of discussions we’ve had on this site), the model that the Jamaican music industry was under, Marley / Rastas got their own label with Tuff Gong, employed local kids who otherwise wouldn’t have the opp, expanded to superstardom without ever succumbing to that status, it’s all an amazing and inspiring thing. Practically the story of Christ. He was even a carpenter or welder or something before his “mission” began. Anyway this is rambling, but I really like the ideas. Tim I like the writing, it’s been a long time since I’ve commented but I’ve kept reading through thick and thinware phases. It’s a cool direction these days. Funny story - last night at our jam place, this dude who showed up last week literally off the street and hung out and jammed with us, came back again. This guy likes to expound on his sort of vision of the world, and he started out last night by saying that something about how we are all professionals and authorities, and that you need to MASTER YOURSELF to have understanding and peace. He’s a black dude from Liberia with a bit of an accent, so sometimes hard to understand but shit man he was saying the same things that you have been saying here more or less, and I was very able to listen and discuss with him having sort of crystalized these ideas recently thru reading your site (I mean I agreed with you right away back when you started writing about this stuff, and knew what you meant - but you had put it into those words that helped me to see it all better) Anyway, ramble, ramble, peace.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
[…] Pay What You Want Rock Stars Need Not Apply We Need New Poetry […]
October 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
[…] Perfectly Descriptive™ operates according to the “pay what it’s worth to you” principle, and is an experiment in alternative business models with an extremely small scale and tight focus. Perfectly Descriptive™ operates according to the Terms of Service agreement model first outlined in my [Agent Action Request] distributed information retrieval and actuation protocol is the first of several such interlocking services which I will be unrolling within the coming weeks. Read Similar Articles: […]