MUSIC INDUSTRY TO INDIES: "LET THEM EAT CAKE"

Yes, we will be comparing big music and media to the French aristocracy who lost their heads in the French Revolution. No, I do not believe it to be a literal comparison, but figuratively, it’s pretty darn close.

Google’s Eric Schmidt: “I would like to tell you that the internet has created such a level playing field that the Long Tail is absolutely the place to be — that there’s so much differentiation, there’s so much diversity, so many new voices.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case. What really happens is something called a power law, with the property that a small number of things are very highly concentrated and most other things have relatively little volume.  Virtually all of the new network markets follow this law. So, while the tail is very interesting, the vast majority of revenue remains in the head. And this is a lesson that businesses have to learn.  While you can have a Long Tail strategy, you better have a head, because that’s where all the revenue is. But when you get everybody together they still like to have one superstar. So, we love the Long Tail, but we make most of our revenue in the head, because of the math of the power law. And you need both, by the way. You need the head and the tail to make the model work.”

If we take this statement at face value, it appears logical and is really not an indictment on the “Long Tail” theory, as many have suggested. But, and there is a big ol’ but coming next. The question is by what means is the aforementioned “power head” formed?

What he is really saying is that nothing has changed in the entertainment industry at all. The cream is not rising to the top, as was prophesied, if you choose to believe that the interweb’s “level playing field” was the answer for independent music artists to find success on their own terms without a label. Schmidt is saying that a machine is still needed to create superstars or even mid-level success stories. Machine: big companies invest big money and create monopolies by “partnering strategically” with other big companies to make blockbuster successes. (see Warner Brothers-Clear Channel Deal). So it takes big money to create a big artist and therein lies the big profit. Shocker. This in turn leaves the unknown indie artist with no marketing budget or capabilities for that matter, in the dirt. Nothing new here. It was this way for decades, but it wasn’t supposed to be this way in the age of the internet.

What has changed is the perception that music “product” is now commercially valueless. When insolvent companies like “Spotify”, propped up by investors for several years, pitch slogans like “never pay for music again” to millions of fans around the world, is it any wonder that it took less than one generation to eradicate a belief that music has a monetary value and is worth investing even a pittance for a digital file of audio? Fans live their lives to a music soundtrack now more than ever, as mobile platforms become virtually sutured to the soul. But there is no commercial value in this?

If you are about to say, “hey artists can make tons of money touring and on t-shirt sales”, you are sadly mistaken. Even some major tours have been cancelled and or downsized due to lack of interest and/or profit. Emerging artists have never fared well touring, and unless you are a one man band, good luck. It seems the medieval days of the traveling minstrel have returned.

Social media is the answer? Becoming the next viral sensation is about as easy as winning American Idol or getting a record deal now. There are too many walls and obstacles to overcome in social media for betting the horse on becoming the next “Beibs”. Social media requires organic growth, which most of the time is slow and lumbering, not an entrepreneurs’ paradise.

To have a modicum of success, today’s indie artists need to be 100% brilliant at the following: songwriting, performing, management, publishing, financing, marketing, promotion, logistics and have a budget to engage them all as well. Is this remotely plausible in most cases? Shouldn’t an artist focus on creating music that will stand the test of time? Who would take a chance on managing and investing in an artist if the financial prospects were so bleak? Is it Mom and Dad to the rescue?

So what are indie artists, deeply entrenched in the long tail of the music industry to do to find success? I believe that I am making a valid comparison to the French Revolution when I say that the aristocracy is in fact the music, media, and entertainment industry who collectively are saying to Indies, “Let them eat cake”. If you know your history, the French aristocracy did not fare too well in 18th century France.

The revolution will be ignited by an upstart company that will create a democratic revolution by putting music fans in charge of the rise of successful artists, not label execs. A company that sees the value in creating partnerships with artists enabling sustaining careers, creating revenue streams by opening doors to song placements in film/TV and corporate sponsorships, funding tours. A company that will give an equal shot to all artists and help them to grow their fan bases through the cross-pollenization of fans in a co-op environment. A company that will reward artists for small successes with national promotion and give them the tools for success… and does it for free.

Can a revolutionary company fueled by determined artists and impassioned fans really overthrow the aristocracy of the majors? It doesn’t really have to at all. It only has to create a democracy of its own to enable the success of its artists or create such a deafening noise that the majors can’t ignore the long tail any longer for fear of extinction, or worse, irrelevancy.

Does this enigmatic company exist?  Why, yes, yes it does.
 
Visit http://www.PopsterX.com to learn more.

Finally, it’s good to be Indie.