March 11, 2008 Aiming to please a few big clients versus aiming to please lots of little clients
Thinking about the difference between aiming to please a few big clients versus aiming to please lots of little clients.
From a business point of view:
Many small entrepreneurs think, “If we could just land Apple, Google, or the government as a client, we’ll be all set!”
Software companies often do this. They hope to make some technology that a huge company will want to build into every product, or install at every employee’s desk.
But there are many problems with this:
- you have to custom-tailor your product to please very few specific people
- those people may change their mind or leave the company
- who are you really working for? are you self-employed or are they your boss?
- if you do land the big client, they practically own you
- by trying so hard to please the big client, you lose touch with what the rest of the world wants
Instead, imagine if you designed your business to have NO big clients - just lots of little clients.
- you don’t need to change what you do to please one client - only the majority (or yourself)
- if one client needs to leave, it’s OK, you can sincerely wish them well
- because no one client can demand you do what they say, you are your own boss (as long as you keep clients happy in general)
- you hear hundreds of people’s opinions, and stay in touch with what the majority of people want
Now, let’s think of this from a music point of view:
Some musicians think, “If I could just land a deal with Interscope or Warner, I’ll be all set!”
But look at the above lists again. It all applies.
The dangerous thing about the record deal mentality is you start changing what you do to please the one or two people at companies who have shown an interest in your music.
It not only hurts your music, but puts you on shaky ground when (not if) that person leaves the company.
By making a plan to only please your fans, labels be damned, then not only do you stay in touch with what people love, but it puts your career on much steadier ground.
Syd Schwartz
Derek’s point about pleasing one’s fans vs. pleasing the key people at the label is noteworthy.
A core component of the Internet are the variety of mechanisms that allow artists and fans to find one another. That connection opens the pathway to communication and feedback which in turn has changed the artist/audience dynamic. Simply put, its pretty easy for artists to find out firsthand whether or not they are pleasing their fans. This can be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, some artists are able to ingest this feedback without impact on their creative drive. Others are bothered or upset by fan feedback, and begin to question their decisions. Still others find that it opens up rifts between band members by using fan feedback to bolster or refute arguments.
One example that I blogged about a couple of years ago was a grassroots movement among Phish fans who called themselves the PLM which was an acronym for People for a Louder Mike. These fans felt that bassist Mike Gordon was not mixed loudly enough at Phish concerts and used the Internet to lobby for a volume increase (the movement was also featured in the January 1998 issue of Bass Player magazine). Long story short, Mike’s bass presence at shows DID get louder which is what the fans wanted. That said, the band did report that at the time Mike’s sound and presence in the mix was a big bone of contention between various band members, and the PLM certainly added fuel to the fire. But that story had a happy ending...others certainly didn’t end as well. I recall several bands that I’ve worked with over the years who were brought to the brink of breaking up over fan comments on their bulletin board or guestbook. So while the notion of prioritizing fans ahead of potential label suitors can be seen as sound advice, the actual success of making/keeping those fans happy isn’t always easy, and should be carefully considered in any artists overall creative strategy.
Andrew Dubber
Nicely put, Derek.
I see this a lot with artists who see 'the big hit' as their ticket to success, and so alter what they do in order to get radio airplay. I'm all in favour of thinking about your target audience, but I think that appealing to a large niche of listeners is a far better and more reliable approach than focusing on the tiny niche of people that are the gatekeepers to the mass market.
But I wonder how this could apply outside of the record industry. Say, in the case of artists who wish to tie in with brands, make soundtracks or jingles, or otherwise work in a way that tends to favour a 'few large clients' approach.
Is there a long tail of clients that could apply, for instance, to someone who makes the theme music for games?
Reader Comments (8)
I've been looking for a blog like this for years. It's about frackin' time!
Totally agree although from experience, it's often difficult to get the band out of that "get signed to a label" mentality. But that's what managers are for... good ones at least.
I definitely feel the core argument that is given by Mr. Sivers as I am of similar mindset to not just aim for the "big dogs". Although I am not for excluding them, I would just much rather have my value be recognized as it stands w/o excessive catering to their ways (and no I can reap profit regardless).
However, in my dealings w/ artists in the music industry or even more so, individuals who are trying to 1) obtain a profitable career within the industry and 2) have this cater to the big client mindset; these are the individuals whose more favorable option may be to tap into the industry this way. I say this because to do so in a new, innovative, and more hands-on way, would require them to be, well...new, innovative, and more hands-on. Characteristics that many artists don't seem to readily possess or to tap into easily. Artists who are by no means lacking in talent and quality music, but rather need direct career guidance that in turn may affect (or is it effect?) their artistic vision. Good? Bad? Ehhh...can't call it, but real none the less.
(Anyway, that's just my half-a-penny and I know that I may be speaking from a much more naive vantage point. I also understand that there are many oversimplifications in play on my part.)
I was waiting for a blog like this, nice job guys.
I totally agree on Derek's point, it suggests a radical perspective change: establishing relationships with one powerful guy in a record label vs. establishing relationships with your fans. They're two pretty different businesses, and the second seems to be definitely more sustainable since you're getting in touch with those who really love your music and who will recognize your work with their money because they love you and your songs (or performances and any other thing you do).
I wanted to suggest an excellent piece by Kevin Kelly on the economics of the long tail for the artist (and not from the traditional distributor's point of view), which is closely connected to what Derek wrote here. He answers to a fundamental question:how do you find and relate to 1.000 true fans and establish a long relationship that allows you to make a living out of your music?
Ciao
Great blog idea Andrew!
And I could not agree with Derek (as usual). With CD Baby he's helping to empower what I like to call the new "musical middle class" which I've blogged about extensively (http://hypebot.typepad.com/hypebot/2007/11/the-rise-of-t-1.html). This growing group of artists understand that by building a fan base and holding on to it, they can make a living for years to come. It may not be stardom, but it allows them to continue creating and it sure beats being stuck in a cubicle.
Hi Bruce,
Great to have your comments here. Not sure what you mean about not agreeing with Derek. I think you're saying nearly the same thing.
Glad to have you aboard.
With the exception of a very small few, everything starts as a niche. From there, simply keep feeding the beast (i.e. fanbase) and watch it grow.
There is one thing to be said for aiming at several big clients: you know who (and where) they are.
Certainly, it's a lot easier to make a living off one big client (while you've got him) than many small ones. Just reaching a sufficient number of fans is a huge problem for most artists. Getting released on a major label (any working label, in fact) solves the problem of initial exposure. Without a label it might take longer than anyone is willing to slug it in a band to make even a passing impression in a enough minds to start a fan-base.
The Internet should be changing this, but now it's too easy to get lost in the background noise, so we're back to square one.
We are serving students for many years with clear goals, high values, work excellence, and a supreme reputation.
Our team is highly inclined to help those students who face difficulties in completing essays and assignments due to any reason.
Assignment help