First
it was Radiohead and their fans. Then it was Jay Z and Samsung. Then his wife Beyonce’s
“no marketing” album dropped. Now we have U2 and Apple. Since the early 2000s,
when Napster started an avalanche that has made album sales almost frivolous, the
music industry has sought new avenues for music distribution and sales. These
avenues have come in many forms including streaming services. And don’t be mistaken;
the four above mentioned alternative sale strategies are not the only attempts
of their kind. But because of their popularity and scope I have chosen to focus
on these for the purposes of this post.
Last
week U2 teamed up with Apple again (last time it was for the launch of their
own iPod in 2004) to help with the distribution of their new album Songs
of Innocence. Though
precise figures are still unknown it is estimated Apple paid U2 close to100
million dollars to give away their album for “free” to the 500 million plus
iTunes users worldwide. Rather than being met with applause from hordes of
adoring fans, many have expressed outrage over the fact that U2’s latest
musical offering music was automatically added to their iTunes accounts. Many
feel U2 was paid to essentially “spam” 500 million people.
Looking
at the recent past there seems to be no right or wrong way to give away music. The
public seems to be more outraged that U2 deprived them of the ability to choose
than anything. Something any layperson could point out is an essential aspect
of successful commerce. In late 2007, Radiohead let their fans decide how much
they wanted to pay for their album. They distributed the album from their
website and let the fans input any amount above one cent. According to the
online music publication Pitchfork, it was an extremely successful release. The
band made close to 3 million dollars and shipped close to 1.75 million CDs.
However, BitTorrent downloads (free pirated MP3s) greatly exceeded CDs sold. In
2013 Samsung paid an estimated 20 million dollars to make Jay-Z’s Magna Carta… album available to Samsung
users before it was released to the public. Then Jay’s wife and perhaps the most
prominent female artist of her generation, Beyonce, didn’t do any marketing and
just randomly dropped her album. The surprise hype seemed to positively affect
sales. Both albums sold well according to current standards. But none of these
artists received as much negative press as U2 for “selling out.”
With
technology constantly changing and new ways of distribution of music being
utilized almost daily it is hard to guess what interesting sales methods will come
next. It is in part exciting that we don’t know. Someone reading this could be
the musical entrepreneur that creates the next big thing. The only certainty is
that music will continue to be made and that now more than ever power lies with
consumers. We can choose to purchase music and or not. We can choose to support
the likes of U2 when they go to Apple for indirect sales or sponsorship. Jay-Z
had his payday from Samsung. Why was it different? Maybe it’s because Samsung
made the album available instead of automatically forcing people to download
the album? Choice always seems to be a necessary ingredient.
I
do believe however that musical acts will continue to choose and seek deals
similar to U2’s in the continued quest for profitability. This presents a
problem though. If people aren’t paying for the end product, someone must be
loosing money. It also remains to be seen how the public will react to their
favorite artists making art under corporate sponsorship. The simple answer is people
should start buying music again. That is the only way the public can be the
true sponsors of the music they love. I guess it all comes down to a choice. We
can choose our greed or theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment