Quick Comments: Reactions to External Blogs

This week while exploring the "blogo-cosm", I came across two posts that I found to be quite interesting and deserving of my written reaction. I was particularly interested in these posts because both expand upon the topic that I covered last week in my "Future of Music" post (as the image to the left portrays). The first post is found on the prestigious Ars Technica (art of technology) blog and is penned by Thomas Wilburn, a Washington D.C. based author who is no stranger to the music industry. This post consists of his reaction to and summation of the various viewpoints explored at the recent Future of Music Policy Summit. I found the ideas he relays to be interesting, revolutionary, and at times, even absurd. The second post I commented on is by Stephen J. Dubner and consists of a panel of music industry experts, each offering his own impression of the current state of the industry. Dubner is a New York Times blog contributer to the "Freakonomics" column and an award winning author. I responded to the section of Dubner's blog written by Koleman Strumpf, professor of business economics at the University of Kansas Business School. My responses to these two posts and the links to the original comments reside below.

Comment to Thomas Wilburn:
"I feel frustrated after reading this post because, unlike the subject matter discussed in most blogs, there is almost nothing present here that I can disagree with. It is inspiring to know that so many people see eye-to-eye on this subject and that people are working together towards a positive end result. I must admit, however, that in the last paragraph of your article, the statement quoted by David Harrell irks me. Being a musician myself, it is hard to agree that "musicians should start balancing the loss of revenue with the promotional value of direct communication with fans online." What exactly is the "promotional value" of direct communication with fans? One can speculate and say that increased contact with fans online will lead to more fans, leading to more paying customers at concerts, eventually leading to more revenue for the artist. Yet a musician has to eat, and these speculative values that Harrell associates with artists giving away their music for free are not reassuring in the least. What I am getting at here, is that revenue and promotional value are two entirely separate things. An artist needs revenue to generate great music, which if given away for free, may lead to an inherent promotional value in the art. It is true that greater promotion usually leads to increased revenue, but not always - record companies rarely recoup all of their promotion expenses on an album for newer artists. And there is no guarantee that playing more shows will generate more revenue for an artist because touring is a major expense as well, (think about transportation, food, and housing costs for months on the road). My point here is that if one wants to turn the artist into a small business, promoting itself through free goods to the public, then one will have to find news way to support artists financially. Creating, recording, manufacturing, distributing, promoting, and touring are costs that smaller artists will not be able to tackle on their own, especially if they give their art away for free."

Comment to Stephen Dubner:
"In the article, Koleman Strumpf claims that there is no direct relationship between the pirating of recorded music and the recent decline in CD sales, and that one explanation is that “the industry has failed to find genres that capture the interests of consumers" (par. 12-13). This seems highly counterintuitive because for so many years now, the Recording Industry Association of America has been suing the public on the basis of copyright infringement claiming that this causes a loss of money through a decline in CD sales. I must ask, can so many people have been sued and asked to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for the wrong reason? Looking at Strumpf's paper, it becomes apparent that he fails to examine one crucial point: the fact that illegal downloads today (and in the last few years) consist mostly of singles rather than albums. People are just not downloading entire albums and this is why their downloads cannot be linked to a decline in album sales. Although it is true that with the recent rise in Bit Torrent technology, downloading entire albums with large file sizes is quickly becoming more common place. Yet, it still holds that the general format of illegal downloads via services such as Limewire and Kazaa is that of the single, not the album. Therefore rather than the consumer being forced to waste roughly eighteen dollars on a new album for a few singles, the intelligent (in terms of saving money) consumer is attaining those singles for free, without all of the filler songs he or she will not listen to anyways. This brings me to my next point which is that I agree with Strumpf that maybe the industry – for some time now – has not found a genre worth selling to the public. I feel that in general that the idea of creating an entire album as a continuous work that tells a story, was thrown out the window long before illegal downloading ever took place. The internet has provided a method for people to not waste their money on music they do not want to hear. This stems from musical decisions rather than promotional and marketing decisions. I believe that if artists and the people who collaborate to make music can create epic stories, (like Pink Floyd did in their 1973 release "The Dark Side of the Moon"), that take the listener on a journey of adventure and discovery, the end result will only be positive and the album will sell once again."