What folks don’t know: more than 90% of published books (and probably even a higher percentage) sell less than 2,000 copies. Some big literary novels that win awards and get major news coverage sell only 10,000 copies or less.
And at the same time, you have more and more A-listers--the mega-sellers who keep publishers out of the red in the first place--increasingly striking out on their own. Why should Brandon Sanderson let his publisher take a huge cut just for playing their game when he can successfully launch a whole series of luxury hardcovers on his terms and only cough up a few points to Kickstarter? More and more, the industry is going to be all farm league and no majors.
In a conversation I had with Larry McMurtry in 1975, he already predicted the near death of literary novels by the year 2000. Seems he wasn't that far off. And of those 10k copies you mention, quite a few 'sales' are to libraries.
In the early 90s when I began in feature film acquisitions for European territories, there were around 125 companies/producers that could make real films. There are maybe ten today. Netflix and other streaming platforms accelerated the decline, wiping out revenue streams from DVD, free TV, Cable etc. Globally that destroyed thousands of careers, and now it's even more of a miracle to be able to finance anything good. And by the way, I bought SMOKE SIGNALS for my territory.
Yes, all rights for Scandinavia. That was quite a while ago. We were all very fond of the movie and released it in cinemas, video and later dvd, then the through the TV windows. Those were the days! Hope all is well!
I remember a case from movies. The best film of around 2002 (major festival price winner) in Austria had a sum of 9 paid attendees in its run of 2 weeks.
This is a terrific piece, Ted. I love how succinctly you describe the issue. The "they don't need record labels anymore" is right on target. Of course, the "they" in this case are artists whose music/talent is geared toward being popular on TikTok. And good on them, but, of course, not all styles of music fit that mold. My son is a musician and he finds it a bit depressing how many of his peers are trying to write little bits of songs that might "go viral" and are constantly spending time filming these videos, hoping for them to go viral. This is time when a musician might instead be gigging or recording or writing amazing songs that don't fit the TikTok mold. There are many challenging genres of music (and Ted, of course, you know this well) that will never be popular on TikTok. I'm not saying labels cater to those genres either (though perhaps the most powerful thing labels can offer is access to the right Spotify playlists). Which is all to say that being a musician remains quite a challenge.
To me record labels are somewhat old fashioned, and the purpose of their existence is becoming smaller and smaller. We can all hope that there will be a positive outcome, but I’m very doubtful that record labels will realize the danger until it’s too late...
Name one of those challenging genres. Chances are they’re far more easily discovered and likely to go viral on TikTok than almost anywhere else. Avant-Garde, Free Jazz, Drone Metal, Japanese Noise, whatever.
There are energizing duets with Karnatic music. Performances and tutorials on Tuvan throat singing. Dances choreographed to Schoenberg.
I even saw a man convincingly dancing to Cage’s 4’33”, which, to me, dispels all the snobbish dismissal of Tiktok’s dancing.
Could you link some of these examples? I'm not particularly into TikTok, but I've searched examples of "dissonant" TikToks and I've found nothing, if not the opposite. Also, we are talking about songs that go viral. I'm 100% sure that there are weirdos that are TikToking on Ferneyhoug, but if they don't reach the "critical mass", they simply don't exist (we're talking about musical business so big numbers are needed)
I’m a senior at Berklee College of music—Music Interdisciplinary Studies (Music Business with an Electronic Music Production focus). One of my classes right now is Music Licensing, which is how I got connected to your video on the future of the music business, from fellow classmate.
I’m not a musician per se, as I got accepted as a sound engineer—currently working on indie films due to what I have learned at Berklee. But to obtain my degree, I have learned how to create original electronic music and even have a few full length songs.
My conclusion right now is that if I want release my music, I will copyright, license and release it wherever and whenever I want. Maybe even for free or at least pursue sync licensing. All the rest looks like a horrible state of affairs. I have always had a huge heart for musicians, which is why I got into and still love mixing music ♥️ but truly things are getting beyond ridiculous!!
Fantastic article Ted! Your insight is right on the mark! The record company executives have winnowed their value down to virtually nothing. I used to think it went his way: Those executives who couldn't cut it in the REAL business world became network TV executives. Those who couldn't cut it as network TV executives went into flipping burgers or sweeping floors. Those who couldn't cut it as burger flippers or floor sweepers became radio station executives (just slightly above pond scum on the evolutionary ladder, from my experience). Now I know the ones who couldn't cut it as criminally inept radio executives all must have become record company executives! I keep thinking the record companies couldn't possibly become any more shortsighted, lazy, stupid or self-destructively greedy than they already are, but year after year they keep proving me wrong, achieving new lows and even faster ways to put themselves out of business! If they worked even one tenth as hard at their actual jobs as they seem to work at avoiding doing anything useful or being of any value to anyone in any way the record industry would be experiencing a fantastic new golden age instead of slowly dying! Oh well. It was nice to know you record industry. You did it to yourself.
People asked me why I had called my book “The Rise And Fall Of Popular Music” over 25 years ago. The business has fallen further and faster than anyone could have imagined.
My understanding is that publishers are increasingly just using the number of twitter followers an author has as a metric for whether they are worth a book deal. You are very much correct that this isn't just about TikTok or twitter, it is about following the real American dream of getting rich without doing any work. Record companies and publishers think they can rely somebody else or an algorithm doing all the work and still make money. That won't work, but their fade into obsolescence probably won't be good for the transmission of art. It will just mean that one's skill at producing viral memes will become the most important skill to a career in art. I assume there will then be a counteraction as people long for something different at some point, but it I have no idea what form it will take.
Brilliant summation of what is happening. Record companies pretty much deserve their fate. All the raw deals for old bluesmen, early rockers and creative folks who didn’t read the mice type or have a lawyer when signing a terrible contract.
While it's great that the barriers to entry are virtually gone, and anyone can make it happen, I'm more concerned about the load this puts on the artists and creators. Content creation burnout is no joke. These platforms are constant machines that need to be fed. If we've shifted the responsibility to the artist, we're diluting the time they can focus on the artistry and loading them up with other responsibilities that may have otherwise been borne by management teams.
This means that we are no longer incentivizing the "best" musicians to succeed - we are incentivizing the ones who can juggle artistry, business strategy, publicity, community engagement, and content development...and with a personality and style that fits the platforms of today.
This also presents a huge opportunity though - platforms that can streamline this creator experience and amplify their abilities will be more successful, because they are helping these creators focus on what they do best.
Another issue, though, is that it's criminal how little TikTok pays musicians per play. You could have a million plays and still make peanuts. I know someone who was excited to have gotten 1400 spins on one of his songs...until learning he made about a tenth of one cent on that. This is the most popular app in the world but they still want to cry poor, and remind you that it's free to use, so you shouldn't expect anything whatsoever, and all this exposure is great, right, aren't you happy with that? Et cetera et cetera.
But you see, this merely demonstrates that streaming services are really not economically viable. The platforms price their subscriptions too low to get more users and their high fixed costs are subsidized by big tech and/or investors. Spotify doesn't know how to make money because they want to have their cake and eat it too. All of this needs to be decentralized by technology into a user-centric model. I'm not going to create social network value unless I get rewarded for my inputs. Anything else is just giving away my personal data to be monetized by somebody else. Substack is a good example for short-form writers.
TikTok doesn't pay "per play", but rather per video that the licensed musical work is used. Part of my music catalog is licensed to TikTok and I have the 11 page licensing agreement in front of me. It's in section 1 (i) - Publisher's Pro Rata Share.
Are you saying you receive more than a tenth of a cent for 1400 streams? This is how it is listed on royalty reports - I'm not sure how that "per video" thing you're talking about would work - that seems to imply it's a flat payout for every video uploaded? I've seen the royalty reports from CD Baby and Soundrop and TuneCore etc myself, and this is how they are listed, as "streams." And everything you read seems to indicate you would be paid based on how many times it is streamed/played/whateveryouwanttocallit. But yeah if you're making more than a tenth of a cent on 1400 plays on TikTok, I would find that very interesting. That was my whole point, TikTok is paying an absurdly low amount.
Some distributors commingle TikTok, Resso, and Luna data in their reports. They operate as subsidiaries under the same parent company, but they're different businesses. I get reporting from Distrokid, CDBaby, Soundrop, Routenote, and Catapult, and they all handle it differently. Resso is the on-demand streaming service, and the rates are going to be extremely low compared to the US because of the standard of living where they operate (India, Indonesia). Luna is the newer, Chinese-based streaming app.
Recording artists and the media should not confuse TikTok plays with "streams". It's not the same thing as Resso or Luna (or Spotify). TikTok can be used without the audio on, and the app knows this. That's likely why the licensing agreement refers to "videos". TikTok also knows when people are using unlicensed music and the videos will lose their music very quickly.
Did you opt-in to the TikTok license with Music Reports? If you didn't, then your music shouldn't be available in the TikTok licensed library, and you are likely receiving royalties from Resso or Luna. Additionally, I receive mechanical royalties from TikTok through Music Reports, however this is directed to Songtrust, my worldwide mechanical and publishing administrator, and I receive quarterly reports that way.
I think the point Jason was trying to make was the diminishing size of the revenue stream and whether it is viable for the up and coming musician who doesn't have brand name recognition yet. I'm not that familiar with TikTok but this applies to whatever streaming service one uses.
Okay, is that your experience? Is it anecdotal or is it universal? Everything I read on the data side confirms that it's almost impossible for 95% of the music profession to make a living this way. Is Gioia incorrect in his article?
Ted is absolutely correct with this article, especially the section where he says: "There are thousands of people thriving nowadays without the support of any legacy media outlet or powerful institution." He's talking about me.
Tik . . . Tok . . . Tik . . . Tok . . . When will TikTok and all the other online outlets become the new "gatekeepers." If there is money to be had, you better believe that this will happen!
Competition. There really are no barriers to entry to innovative online platforms beyond network effects and first mover. Before Facebook, there was Second Life, Friendster and My Space. Before Tik-Tok there was YouTube. After Facebook came Instagram. As we progress, new models will serve users more and more and the platform centralized gatekeeper less and less. We probably need blockchain to get there.
Maybe. Blockchain in music is trying to become "ant-copying" tech, and NFTs are trying to create scarcity. I like the future where artists go direct to fans. No middlemen needed.
Well, perhaps, but I may have a slightly different take. I would argue that copying content is a meaningless issue (this was only important to folks dependent on physical media profits, like record execs). Transaction prices are so low that anybody illegally copying has more time than money and is not depriving the artist of much $ - a few pennies? Better that we solve the search and discovery problem for consumers for that small price. Piracy disappears when it becomes more costly than not.
NFTs seem to be targeted to reap scarcity value up front rather than create it. It only really applies to rare, unique works of art that have the potential for long-tail revenue streams. One must have a successful brand before NFTs will reap much value. Most DIY art won't qualify.
I agree that artists do need to connect directly to fans and consumers and cut out the middleman. One, because the price of content isn't high enough to support the middleman function. Two, because there's little value added by middlemen in the digital world, and three, because the value creators need to reap is in the connections that sharing art creates. It's about monetizing the network data. Creators need to control those networks and reap the value.
Since the commercial Internet crawled out of the primordial soup, it laid bare the classic behavior of cannibal capitalism: find a food chain and manage to insinuate yourself into it so you just take a bite out of everything that goes by. Sometimes this actually “added value” by improving the scaling behavior, but other times, not so much. Sometimes it actually reduced value because it was just one more mouth to feed so the end-used price went *up*. On the Internet, it is comparatively easy to spawn a new thing, and at first, not that hard to wiretap a food chain when nobody was looking too closely. Now it’s harder to do but the spoils of disintermediation are mich larger. Of course, Tik-Toc will soon be seen as the next fatted calf and it too will have done to it what it is doing. The record labels are just this round’s big losers. But there is another point here worth considering. Disintermediation is the enemy of scale, but scale is necessary for efficiency. The question is whether we end up with a system where teams of raiders keep hatcheting each other to the point that *nobody* gets critical mass, or are there saddle points where the system can stabilize within rational limits.
It’s already happening to the video streaming services. When they first hit town, everyone was gonna ne a cord cutter - cut that nasty old coax from your cable TV provider. OOPS! Do you need that coax for Internet service? Even so, there are now enough streaming services that we are back at 100 streamers and I cannot find where to find the damn show I want to watch! People failed to appreciate that one of the critical values of cable TV the number of channels bit the directory service that lets you find and navigate to what you want. If you subscribe to 10 streaming services, you can’t find your shoes much less your shows.
It’s the metadata, stupid!
Labels vaporizing themselves won’t help if suddenly there are 100 places people release music and they spend all the time they would spend *listening* rummaging around the Internet.
That means that metadata will be the most valuable thing in the long run. Currently the music biz is in the throws of disruption *at small scale*.
What happens at large scale? How long do you think it will take GOOG to be the place people go to find music?
Plenty is a double-edged sword. Ultimately people pay to have sense to made of things.
And that puts the power back in the hands of aggregators and curators.
Good analysis. I think finding the content/music you want is going to get easier and easier. Your favorite DJ / search engine / curator will also still be around to help you.
Some labels still promote the heck out of their artists: Jim Pugh and Little Village. Bruce Iglauer at Alligator. Of the majors, though, I think only Don Was, running BlueNote, still does much to promote his roster of artists, or takes chances on young unknowns. But those are all specialty labels, too: Roots, blues, jazz.
On the journalism side you allude to, I think Substack is great for folks like you, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and/or Bari Weiss, who have tremendous national name recognition. For the young writer just striking out, maybe not so much. I'm neither young nor just starting out, but also don't have much in the way of name recognition. While I would have probably close to zero interest in writing for any daily newspapers these days, I do write for Living Blues, AllAboutJazz, San Diego Troubadour, and a religious magazine - because each has a very specific audience built around a shared topic of interest. But those are unique situations.
Another aspect of major, name-brand writers moving to Substack is the utterly panicked reaction from the legacy gatekeepers. Never thought I'd see the day that the NYT, WaPo, CBS, etc., would be demanding government control over public discourse. The thought of having an owner of Twitter who believes in a broader range of opinion that they can't control is driving many of these legacy reporters and editors close to the edge of madness.
Not sure if I'm entertained or horrified by the whole spectacle.
We've seen this coming from a long way off - roughly the last 20 years. Legacy entertainment media publishers once provided the necessary risk capital an artist needed to develop a successful career. The world has changed and these old business models are usually the last to adapt, when it's too late. Look at how Apple decimated the record companies with iTunes? And back then all the record companies had to do was co-opt Napster. Couldn't do it and their ability to respond decreased with their revenue streams. Remember when their response to ripping and sharing music was to sue their best customers? Smh...
Artists-whether musicians, authors, poets, photographers, videographers, or podcaster- all just need an online distribution and networking platform that serves them. The art is the way to make the connection - the connection is value. Every influencer knows this. The legacy media is merely a promo and marketing vendor service and will be paid according to value added amid fierce competition. Artists don't need publishers and distributors that add no value. The prestige of having a publishing deal or a record co. deal is a quaint anachronism. As Ted explains - only unsuccessful artists will want one.
The future is coming and the middlemen will provide value or disappear. It's the Golden Rule - he who has the gold rules. Oh, and blockchain will be a big part of the decentralization and coordination of creative markets. The future can't get here soon enough.
What folks don’t know: more than 90% of published books (and probably even a higher percentage) sell less than 2,000 copies. Some big literary novels that win awards and get major news coverage sell only 10,000 copies or less.
And at the same time, you have more and more A-listers--the mega-sellers who keep publishers out of the red in the first place--increasingly striking out on their own. Why should Brandon Sanderson let his publisher take a huge cut just for playing their game when he can successfully launch a whole series of luxury hardcovers on his terms and only cough up a few points to Kickstarter? More and more, the industry is going to be all farm league and no majors.
“All farm league and no majors.” That’s a great observation.
In a conversation I had with Larry McMurtry in 1975, he already predicted the near death of literary novels by the year 2000. Seems he wasn't that far off. And of those 10k copies you mention, quite a few 'sales' are to libraries.
In the early 90s when I began in feature film acquisitions for European territories, there were around 125 companies/producers that could make real films. There are maybe ten today. Netflix and other streaming platforms accelerated the decline, wiping out revenue streams from DVD, free TV, Cable etc. Globally that destroyed thousands of careers, and now it's even more of a miracle to be able to finance anything good. And by the way, I bought SMOKE SIGNALS for my territory.
You bought Smoke Signals! Wow!
Yes, all rights for Scandinavia. That was quite a while ago. We were all very fond of the movie and released it in cinemas, video and later dvd, then the through the TV windows. Those were the days! Hope all is well!
I remember a case from movies. The best film of around 2002 (major festival price winner) in Austria had a sum of 9 paid attendees in its run of 2 weeks.
I’ve sat alone on a few theaters to watch great movies.
This is a terrific piece, Ted. I love how succinctly you describe the issue. The "they don't need record labels anymore" is right on target. Of course, the "they" in this case are artists whose music/talent is geared toward being popular on TikTok. And good on them, but, of course, not all styles of music fit that mold. My son is a musician and he finds it a bit depressing how many of his peers are trying to write little bits of songs that might "go viral" and are constantly spending time filming these videos, hoping for them to go viral. This is time when a musician might instead be gigging or recording or writing amazing songs that don't fit the TikTok mold. There are many challenging genres of music (and Ted, of course, you know this well) that will never be popular on TikTok. I'm not saying labels cater to those genres either (though perhaps the most powerful thing labels can offer is access to the right Spotify playlists). Which is all to say that being a musician remains quite a challenge.
Who believes that content going viral on TT, FB, IG, etc is somehow random or fair?
To me record labels are somewhat old fashioned, and the purpose of their existence is becoming smaller and smaller. We can all hope that there will be a positive outcome, but I’m very doubtful that record labels will realize the danger until it’s too late...
Name one of those challenging genres. Chances are they’re far more easily discovered and likely to go viral on TikTok than almost anywhere else. Avant-Garde, Free Jazz, Drone Metal, Japanese Noise, whatever.
There are energizing duets with Karnatic music. Performances and tutorials on Tuvan throat singing. Dances choreographed to Schoenberg.
I even saw a man convincingly dancing to Cage’s 4’33”, which, to me, dispels all the snobbish dismissal of Tiktok’s dancing.
Could you link some of these examples? I'm not particularly into TikTok, but I've searched examples of "dissonant" TikToks and I've found nothing, if not the opposite. Also, we are talking about songs that go viral. I'm 100% sure that there are weirdos that are TikToking on Ferneyhoug, but if they don't reach the "critical mass", they simply don't exist (we're talking about musical business so big numbers are needed)
I’m a senior at Berklee College of music—Music Interdisciplinary Studies (Music Business with an Electronic Music Production focus). One of my classes right now is Music Licensing, which is how I got connected to your video on the future of the music business, from fellow classmate.
I’m not a musician per se, as I got accepted as a sound engineer—currently working on indie films due to what I have learned at Berklee. But to obtain my degree, I have learned how to create original electronic music and even have a few full length songs.
My conclusion right now is that if I want release my music, I will copyright, license and release it wherever and whenever I want. Maybe even for free or at least pursue sync licensing. All the rest looks like a horrible state of affairs. I have always had a huge heart for musicians, which is why I got into and still love mixing music ♥️ but truly things are getting beyond ridiculous!!
Thank you for all you do!!!!
Fantastic article Ted! Your insight is right on the mark! The record company executives have winnowed their value down to virtually nothing. I used to think it went his way: Those executives who couldn't cut it in the REAL business world became network TV executives. Those who couldn't cut it as network TV executives went into flipping burgers or sweeping floors. Those who couldn't cut it as burger flippers or floor sweepers became radio station executives (just slightly above pond scum on the evolutionary ladder, from my experience). Now I know the ones who couldn't cut it as criminally inept radio executives all must have become record company executives! I keep thinking the record companies couldn't possibly become any more shortsighted, lazy, stupid or self-destructively greedy than they already are, but year after year they keep proving me wrong, achieving new lows and even faster ways to put themselves out of business! If they worked even one tenth as hard at their actual jobs as they seem to work at avoiding doing anything useful or being of any value to anyone in any way the record industry would be experiencing a fantastic new golden age instead of slowly dying! Oh well. It was nice to know you record industry. You did it to yourself.
People asked me why I had called my book “The Rise And Fall Of Popular Music” over 25 years ago. The business has fallen further and faster than anyone could have imagined.
My understanding is that publishers are increasingly just using the number of twitter followers an author has as a metric for whether they are worth a book deal. You are very much correct that this isn't just about TikTok or twitter, it is about following the real American dream of getting rich without doing any work. Record companies and publishers think they can rely somebody else or an algorithm doing all the work and still make money. That won't work, but their fade into obsolescence probably won't be good for the transmission of art. It will just mean that one's skill at producing viral memes will become the most important skill to a career in art. I assume there will then be a counteraction as people long for something different at some point, but it I have no idea what form it will take.
So we are back to the music. That can't be bad.
Brilliant summation of what is happening. Record companies pretty much deserve their fate. All the raw deals for old bluesmen, early rockers and creative folks who didn’t read the mice type or have a lawyer when signing a terrible contract.
While it's great that the barriers to entry are virtually gone, and anyone can make it happen, I'm more concerned about the load this puts on the artists and creators. Content creation burnout is no joke. These platforms are constant machines that need to be fed. If we've shifted the responsibility to the artist, we're diluting the time they can focus on the artistry and loading them up with other responsibilities that may have otherwise been borne by management teams.
This means that we are no longer incentivizing the "best" musicians to succeed - we are incentivizing the ones who can juggle artistry, business strategy, publicity, community engagement, and content development...and with a personality and style that fits the platforms of today.
This also presents a huge opportunity though - platforms that can streamline this creator experience and amplify their abilities will be more successful, because they are helping these creators focus on what they do best.
Another issue, though, is that it's criminal how little TikTok pays musicians per play. You could have a million plays and still make peanuts. I know someone who was excited to have gotten 1400 spins on one of his songs...until learning he made about a tenth of one cent on that. This is the most popular app in the world but they still want to cry poor, and remind you that it's free to use, so you shouldn't expect anything whatsoever, and all this exposure is great, right, aren't you happy with that? Et cetera et cetera.
But you see, this merely demonstrates that streaming services are really not economically viable. The platforms price their subscriptions too low to get more users and their high fixed costs are subsidized by big tech and/or investors. Spotify doesn't know how to make money because they want to have their cake and eat it too. All of this needs to be decentralized by technology into a user-centric model. I'm not going to create social network value unless I get rewarded for my inputs. Anything else is just giving away my personal data to be monetized by somebody else. Substack is a good example for short-form writers.
TikTok doesn't pay "per play", but rather per video that the licensed musical work is used. Part of my music catalog is licensed to TikTok and I have the 11 page licensing agreement in front of me. It's in section 1 (i) - Publisher's Pro Rata Share.
Are you saying you receive more than a tenth of a cent for 1400 streams? This is how it is listed on royalty reports - I'm not sure how that "per video" thing you're talking about would work - that seems to imply it's a flat payout for every video uploaded? I've seen the royalty reports from CD Baby and Soundrop and TuneCore etc myself, and this is how they are listed, as "streams." And everything you read seems to indicate you would be paid based on how many times it is streamed/played/whateveryouwanttocallit. But yeah if you're making more than a tenth of a cent on 1400 plays on TikTok, I would find that very interesting. That was my whole point, TikTok is paying an absurdly low amount.
Some distributors commingle TikTok, Resso, and Luna data in their reports. They operate as subsidiaries under the same parent company, but they're different businesses. I get reporting from Distrokid, CDBaby, Soundrop, Routenote, and Catapult, and they all handle it differently. Resso is the on-demand streaming service, and the rates are going to be extremely low compared to the US because of the standard of living where they operate (India, Indonesia). Luna is the newer, Chinese-based streaming app.
Recording artists and the media should not confuse TikTok plays with "streams". It's not the same thing as Resso or Luna (or Spotify). TikTok can be used without the audio on, and the app knows this. That's likely why the licensing agreement refers to "videos". TikTok also knows when people are using unlicensed music and the videos will lose their music very quickly.
Did you opt-in to the TikTok license with Music Reports? If you didn't, then your music shouldn't be available in the TikTok licensed library, and you are likely receiving royalties from Resso or Luna. Additionally, I receive mechanical royalties from TikTok through Music Reports, however this is directed to Songtrust, my worldwide mechanical and publishing administrator, and I receive quarterly reports that way.
I think the point Jason was trying to make was the diminishing size of the revenue stream and whether it is viable for the up and coming musician who doesn't have brand name recognition yet. I'm not that familiar with TikTok but this applies to whatever streaming service one uses.
He's wrong about that, too.
Okay, is that your experience? Is it anecdotal or is it universal? Everything I read on the data side confirms that it's almost impossible for 95% of the music profession to make a living this way. Is Gioia incorrect in his article?
Ted is absolutely correct with this article, especially the section where he says: "There are thousands of people thriving nowadays without the support of any legacy media outlet or powerful institution." He's talking about me.
I love that your first use of embedded Tik-Tok on Substack was used to blast Tik-Tok. Bravo, Sir!
Tik . . . Tok . . . Tik . . . Tok . . . When will TikTok and all the other online outlets become the new "gatekeepers." If there is money to be had, you better believe that this will happen!
Of course! What makes anyone think that things rising to the top are now fair, or random?
Competition. There really are no barriers to entry to innovative online platforms beyond network effects and first mover. Before Facebook, there was Second Life, Friendster and My Space. Before Tik-Tok there was YouTube. After Facebook came Instagram. As we progress, new models will serve users more and more and the platform centralized gatekeeper less and less. We probably need blockchain to get there.
Maybe. Blockchain in music is trying to become "ant-copying" tech, and NFTs are trying to create scarcity. I like the future where artists go direct to fans. No middlemen needed.
Well, perhaps, but I may have a slightly different take. I would argue that copying content is a meaningless issue (this was only important to folks dependent on physical media profits, like record execs). Transaction prices are so low that anybody illegally copying has more time than money and is not depriving the artist of much $ - a few pennies? Better that we solve the search and discovery problem for consumers for that small price. Piracy disappears when it becomes more costly than not.
NFTs seem to be targeted to reap scarcity value up front rather than create it. It only really applies to rare, unique works of art that have the potential for long-tail revenue streams. One must have a successful brand before NFTs will reap much value. Most DIY art won't qualify.
I agree that artists do need to connect directly to fans and consumers and cut out the middleman. One, because the price of content isn't high enough to support the middleman function. Two, because there's little value added by middlemen in the digital world, and three, because the value creators need to reap is in the connections that sharing art creates. It's about monetizing the network data. Creators need to control those networks and reap the value.
I wish I could be so sanguine about this. History says "follow the bucks."
Good question!
Since the commercial Internet crawled out of the primordial soup, it laid bare the classic behavior of cannibal capitalism: find a food chain and manage to insinuate yourself into it so you just take a bite out of everything that goes by. Sometimes this actually “added value” by improving the scaling behavior, but other times, not so much. Sometimes it actually reduced value because it was just one more mouth to feed so the end-used price went *up*. On the Internet, it is comparatively easy to spawn a new thing, and at first, not that hard to wiretap a food chain when nobody was looking too closely. Now it’s harder to do but the spoils of disintermediation are mich larger. Of course, Tik-Toc will soon be seen as the next fatted calf and it too will have done to it what it is doing. The record labels are just this round’s big losers. But there is another point here worth considering. Disintermediation is the enemy of scale, but scale is necessary for efficiency. The question is whether we end up with a system where teams of raiders keep hatcheting each other to the point that *nobody* gets critical mass, or are there saddle points where the system can stabilize within rational limits.
It’s already happening to the video streaming services. When they first hit town, everyone was gonna ne a cord cutter - cut that nasty old coax from your cable TV provider. OOPS! Do you need that coax for Internet service? Even so, there are now enough streaming services that we are back at 100 streamers and I cannot find where to find the damn show I want to watch! People failed to appreciate that one of the critical values of cable TV the number of channels bit the directory service that lets you find and navigate to what you want. If you subscribe to 10 streaming services, you can’t find your shoes much less your shows.
It’s the metadata, stupid!
Labels vaporizing themselves won’t help if suddenly there are 100 places people release music and they spend all the time they would spend *listening* rummaging around the Internet.
That means that metadata will be the most valuable thing in the long run. Currently the music biz is in the throws of disruption *at small scale*.
What happens at large scale? How long do you think it will take GOOG to be the place people go to find music?
Plenty is a double-edged sword. Ultimately people pay to have sense to made of things.
And that puts the power back in the hands of aggregators and curators.
And the wheel of incarnation makes another turn.
Good analysis. I think finding the content/music you want is going to get easier and easier. Your favorite DJ / search engine / curator will also still be around to help you.
Some labels still promote the heck out of their artists: Jim Pugh and Little Village. Bruce Iglauer at Alligator. Of the majors, though, I think only Don Was, running BlueNote, still does much to promote his roster of artists, or takes chances on young unknowns. But those are all specialty labels, too: Roots, blues, jazz.
On the journalism side you allude to, I think Substack is great for folks like you, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and/or Bari Weiss, who have tremendous national name recognition. For the young writer just striking out, maybe not so much. I'm neither young nor just starting out, but also don't have much in the way of name recognition. While I would have probably close to zero interest in writing for any daily newspapers these days, I do write for Living Blues, AllAboutJazz, San Diego Troubadour, and a religious magazine - because each has a very specific audience built around a shared topic of interest. But those are unique situations.
Another aspect of major, name-brand writers moving to Substack is the utterly panicked reaction from the legacy gatekeepers. Never thought I'd see the day that the NYT, WaPo, CBS, etc., would be demanding government control over public discourse. The thought of having an owner of Twitter who believes in a broader range of opinion that they can't control is driving many of these legacy reporters and editors close to the edge of madness.
Not sure if I'm entertained or horrified by the whole spectacle.
🙄
We don't need no record labels.
We've seen this coming from a long way off - roughly the last 20 years. Legacy entertainment media publishers once provided the necessary risk capital an artist needed to develop a successful career. The world has changed and these old business models are usually the last to adapt, when it's too late. Look at how Apple decimated the record companies with iTunes? And back then all the record companies had to do was co-opt Napster. Couldn't do it and their ability to respond decreased with their revenue streams. Remember when their response to ripping and sharing music was to sue their best customers? Smh...
Artists-whether musicians, authors, poets, photographers, videographers, or podcaster- all just need an online distribution and networking platform that serves them. The art is the way to make the connection - the connection is value. Every influencer knows this. The legacy media is merely a promo and marketing vendor service and will be paid according to value added amid fierce competition. Artists don't need publishers and distributors that add no value. The prestige of having a publishing deal or a record co. deal is a quaint anachronism. As Ted explains - only unsuccessful artists will want one.
The future is coming and the middlemen will provide value or disappear. It's the Golden Rule - he who has the gold rules. Oh, and blockchain will be a big part of the decentralization and coordination of creative markets. The future can't get here soon enough.
Create-Share-Connect.
www.tukaglobal.com