"So please buy my music. Or take it for free. I’m honestly just grateful to have your attention."What would drive a musician to the point of offering up the fruit of his toil without receiving anything in return? Well, nothing. Even Jesus said, "It's more blessed to give than to receive." Meaning there's an incentive to give rather than receive: greater blessing. Now don't leap to conclusions about what that means without digging into what Jesus (and the rest of the Scriptures) had in mind when they said "blessing."
Back to the matter at hand, Webb's essay was suggesting that the model of giving music away in exchange for some basic contact information can lead to a relationship that cultivates more long-term monetary profit for the artist. The gist of his argument:
"If someone buys my music on iTunes, Amazon, or in a record store (remember those?), let alone streams it on Spotify, it’s all short-term money. That might be the last interaction I have with that particular fan. But if I give that fan the same record for free in exchange for a connection (an e-mail and a zip code), I can make that same money, if not double or triple that amount, over time."He goes on to say that the artist connects with a lot more people by giving away their music (more people will download it free than buy it), and that if even 20% of those downloaders end up coming to a show or buying other music from the artist, they will make 2 or 3 times the money they would by selling their music on iTunes (let alone the pittance they make from streaming services like Spotify). But I think Webb assumes something about an artist in his article, something that I'm going to make explicit here: True artists don't make their art in order to attain fame and fortune. True artists embrace whatever measure of fame or fortune aids them in continuing to make their art.
And that's precisely why the "give it away" model that Webb's music distribution site Noisetrade.com offers is so right for artists. As he argues, it helps them sustain a profit, which helps them sustain their music-making. But beyond finances, it gives them a model that enables their art to connect with more people, because it removes the initial barrier of financial cost from between the consumer and their music. And while many artists would say they make art for themselves, because it's who they are, and because they can't NOT do it, I've heard enough from them to believe that one of the most gratifying experiences any artist has is when someone else benefits from or relates to their music. What an opportunity! Give your music away, let it make that kind of impact, and reap the benefits of that deep connection by receiving promotional value as people pass on their appreciation for the music, as well as financial value as people are more willing to pay for music - live or recorded - now that they've connected with the artist.
One aspect of Webb's essay did strike me as out-of-place, though. He spent a significant amount of time disparaging Spotify (and similar services) for their lack of profitability for the artist. While his points seem valid, (and it's at least interesting to the music consumer), couldn't a better approach be a brainstorm for how the popularity and discovery/distribution of a service like Spotify could enhance the "give-it-away" model. If artists are already willing to give their music away on Noisetrade, couldn't the website partner with (or compete with) other streaming services by offering a direct link from a streaming service to FREE downloads of the artist's music on Noisetrade?
Ok, it's your turn: Comment on Webb's article, or my response, the music industry, Noisetrade, Spotify, or whatever. Also, can you think of other areas of business or life where this sowing freely and reaping freely principle are at work? Or could be?
I've got one for you. Now what do you have? And how are you going to sow generously with your life?
No comments:
Post a Comment