Adding Value to Devalued Music
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010
It’s an issue many of us in the music industry don’t want to talk about… the devaluation of music. It’s scary for anyone that works in the business. It’s natural to fear the unknown. We all talk about the new music business, but what that means is still very much up in the air, and that is disconcerting.
When I speak of the devaluation of music, I am referring to recorded music. For a long time the music industry and the recorded music industry were mostly the same thing. Everything an artist did was a compliment to their current or upcoming release. Generating revenue by touring is nothing new, but back then, if you were a major label artist, touring was as much about selling records as it was selling tickets. You had to keep the record label happy.
Now, the recorded music industry is suffering, but the music industry lives on. Recorded music isn’t going away, but the amount of direct revenue that it generated is on indefinite hiatus.
Some artists defy the trends and still do well with their record sales. They are few and far between, and they usually either have massive appeal over a wide audience, or they have name recognition from the good old days when their major label still spent the equivalent of a small nation’s annual budget marketing their releases. Most artists these days don’t fall into that category.
People just don’t buy music like they used to. I’m not going to get into why. It’s not going to change anytime soon. The why doesn’t matter now. So I’m done having long painful discussions about the “why”. I want to talk about what’s next.
First, make peace with the new music consumer. Don’t waste your time cursing their existence or filing lawsuit after lawsuit. That is the old music business, and you don’t work there anymore. You work in the new music business.
Instead, figure out what you possess that does have value in the form of revenue. The live show. The live show still has great value. Even with the advent of live video streaming, the experience of seeing an artist live cannot presently be replaced. Publishing is another example. Performance rights and synchronization licensing are still very profitable areas, and in some cases, they expose an artist to an otherwise untouched audience.
Some artists give their music away in exchange for an email address. Some still charge $15 for a CD. It really is a case-by-case situation. For an adult contemporary artist who appeals to a middle age crowd, charging a standard amount probably makes sense. Their target audience is far more likely to attach value to recorded music and, therefore, far more likely to buy the album.
A younger, indie artist will probably find more value in making a connection with a fan than they would in charging for their music. They’re going to want to collect more information than money. The money comes later for them. It might come in the form of increased ticket sales. An email address collected in exchange for a free download can be used to directly communicate to their fans, informing them of upcoming tour dates and a link to buy tickets. Now the free music has potential, tangible, monetary value. The indie artist understands this. They’re part of the new music business.
Let me be clear. I despise illegal downloading of any intellectual property. But no matter how wrong it is no one has been able to stop it. So dwelling on the morality issue is of no use to me.
It is time to get past thinking of recorded music only as a product to be sold. What else can it do to generate revenue? That, I’m afraid, is up to you to figure out. And you will, because you’re creative and savvy. That’s why you are part of the new music business.
