Failed Experiment, Failed Study or Failed Generation?
Everyone is buzzing about Radiohead's on-line experiment where they allowed their fans to decide how much they wanted to pay to download their new release "In Rainbows." I feel the I must first preface that I am not necessarily a "fan" of the band. Nor do I disdain them for that matter. I have heard a few of their songs and what I have heard I do like. So I probably should listen to more. Anyway, I don't know why that piece of information is relevant to this post, but I feel that maybe it establishes some objectivity. Or maybe not.
The most recent press regarding this endeavor reports that according to study by comScore Inc, 62% of the people who downloaded "In Rainbows" decided that they would pay $0 for the download. And it was reported that of the remaining downloads (38%) averaged about $6.00. First, I have to critique this so-called study. The Associate Press reports that the results of this study used data from only a few hundred people of the 2 million computer users worldwide who are part of comScore database, nor was a margin of error reported. I also have to wonder what sort of sampling technique did they undertake to identify the few hundred people in which data was gathered from. As with many research "studies" one has to be very cautious about results that are reported as so often there could be flaws in methodology such as in the sampling, analysis or intrepretation of the data which may lead to erroneous conclusions. I'm not saying that any of these were problems with comScore's study because I have not read a full report as I was not able to find a full copy, although I didn't dig too much. Hmmmm....
Anyway, the point that I really want to get to is that if indeed it is "true" that a majority of the people who downloaded "In Rainbows" chose to pay nothing, what does that say about this generation of music fans? Getting something for nothing in the music world is not a new concept. One can look at such huge events as Woodstock (the 1969 one & only one in my opinion) and the Festival Express train tour across Canada in 1970 and see that some music fans believed that music should be free and are offended that organizers and promoters would actually have the gall to charge them to see their favorite musicians perform. So maybe this is not a new phenomenon.
But I can't help but feeling that the sense of entitlement that many seem to feel regarding music is disappointing. I too have become frustrated with big record companies who are accustomed to getting rich and fat off the music industry that they have hijacked. The rising prices of CDS and the increased use of the internet has led many music fans to find alternatives to finding and enjoying the music that they seek. And with that the lawsuits that have been brought forth upon normal average citizens who may or may not have known what they were getting into when they "illegally" downloaded music as well as the bullying and what I almost see as borderline extortion by ASCAP on small business owners who play music in their businesses may also contribute to music fans disillusionment with the industry. And yes, I do believe that songwriters, musicians, and performers deserve their fair share of the profits as they are the creators and dispensers of the entertainment, and I acknowlege that the record companies do put up the money to allow them to record, produce and market their music, but it's more the tactics that I have a problem with. So I do understand why music fans are fed up.
I was pleased to hear about Radiohead's experiment. It gives one hope that maybe the record company fat cats aren't going to be the ones to greatly profit from the music. Instead it may allow musicians to take more control of their own destinies and not be subjected to the fancies and whims of out of touch record executives who hold so much power. Yeah, they bank roll these bands, but it's called an investment. So they don't do it out the goodness of their heart. And there have been some bands that have shown that you don't need record companies to establish a following. Bands that have allowed their fans to tape their live concerts have been able to garner large and "deadicated" fanbases who remain loyal to their music. So I see Radiohead as taking that concept to a new level and hopefully helping to establish a new model for bands to create and release their music with their own vision.
However, back to the reports that seem to suggest that most music fans when given the choice would rather have something for nothing. This is what is disturbing to me. A recent sidewalk poll I saw on a news channel asked people if they had a choice to pay nothing for a particular thing or service, would they choose that. The clips they showed all seemed to indicate that of course most would choose to pay nothing. Who wouldn't? I myself wouldn't want to pass up a bargain like that. However, if you look beyond your pocketbook or wallet and think about it from a different perpective one has to realize that nothing is for free. I believe that in order to have harmony, one has to have an even exchange for goods and services. If one chooses to get something for free, what is the long term result of that? I would rather people move towards a different way of thinking. Think about like when you might go to a museum that doesn't charge admission, but rather asks for a donation. You pay what you think it's worth, or maybe what you can afford, or maybe what you think is necessary to ensure the longevity and qualilty of the museum you are visiting. If everyone chose to bypass a donation, where does that lead us? Sure you get something for free and you can still buy that Big Mac on the way home, but past that we all are going to suffer in the long run.
So, the bottom line of all of this is that I hope that when one is faced with this choice if there are future "experiments" of this type, that people will really think beyond their personal situation and the way it may benefit them in the short term. Instead think of it as a way of making a contribution to a new way of thinking. One in which we all have truly invested in making this world a better place. Or you can just choose to be a cheap son of a bitch. You make the choice.
The most recent press regarding this endeavor reports that according to study by comScore Inc, 62% of the people who downloaded "In Rainbows" decided that they would pay $0 for the download. And it was reported that of the remaining downloads (38%) averaged about $6.00. First, I have to critique this so-called study. The Associate Press reports that the results of this study used data from only a few hundred people of the 2 million computer users worldwide who are part of comScore database, nor was a margin of error reported. I also have to wonder what sort of sampling technique did they undertake to identify the few hundred people in which data was gathered from. As with many research "studies" one has to be very cautious about results that are reported as so often there could be flaws in methodology such as in the sampling, analysis or intrepretation of the data which may lead to erroneous conclusions. I'm not saying that any of these were problems with comScore's study because I have not read a full report as I was not able to find a full copy, although I didn't dig too much. Hmmmm....
Anyway, the point that I really want to get to is that if indeed it is "true" that a majority of the people who downloaded "In Rainbows" chose to pay nothing, what does that say about this generation of music fans? Getting something for nothing in the music world is not a new concept. One can look at such huge events as Woodstock (the 1969 one & only one in my opinion) and the Festival Express train tour across Canada in 1970 and see that some music fans believed that music should be free and are offended that organizers and promoters would actually have the gall to charge them to see their favorite musicians perform. So maybe this is not a new phenomenon.
But I can't help but feeling that the sense of entitlement that many seem to feel regarding music is disappointing. I too have become frustrated with big record companies who are accustomed to getting rich and fat off the music industry that they have hijacked. The rising prices of CDS and the increased use of the internet has led many music fans to find alternatives to finding and enjoying the music that they seek. And with that the lawsuits that have been brought forth upon normal average citizens who may or may not have known what they were getting into when they "illegally" downloaded music as well as the bullying and what I almost see as borderline extortion by ASCAP on small business owners who play music in their businesses may also contribute to music fans disillusionment with the industry. And yes, I do believe that songwriters, musicians, and performers deserve their fair share of the profits as they are the creators and dispensers of the entertainment, and I acknowlege that the record companies do put up the money to allow them to record, produce and market their music, but it's more the tactics that I have a problem with. So I do understand why music fans are fed up.
I was pleased to hear about Radiohead's experiment. It gives one hope that maybe the record company fat cats aren't going to be the ones to greatly profit from the music. Instead it may allow musicians to take more control of their own destinies and not be subjected to the fancies and whims of out of touch record executives who hold so much power. Yeah, they bank roll these bands, but it's called an investment. So they don't do it out the goodness of their heart. And there have been some bands that have shown that you don't need record companies to establish a following. Bands that have allowed their fans to tape their live concerts have been able to garner large and "deadicated" fanbases who remain loyal to their music. So I see Radiohead as taking that concept to a new level and hopefully helping to establish a new model for bands to create and release their music with their own vision.
However, back to the reports that seem to suggest that most music fans when given the choice would rather have something for nothing. This is what is disturbing to me. A recent sidewalk poll I saw on a news channel asked people if they had a choice to pay nothing for a particular thing or service, would they choose that. The clips they showed all seemed to indicate that of course most would choose to pay nothing. Who wouldn't? I myself wouldn't want to pass up a bargain like that. However, if you look beyond your pocketbook or wallet and think about it from a different perpective one has to realize that nothing is for free. I believe that in order to have harmony, one has to have an even exchange for goods and services. If one chooses to get something for free, what is the long term result of that? I would rather people move towards a different way of thinking. Think about like when you might go to a museum that doesn't charge admission, but rather asks for a donation. You pay what you think it's worth, or maybe what you can afford, or maybe what you think is necessary to ensure the longevity and qualilty of the museum you are visiting. If everyone chose to bypass a donation, where does that lead us? Sure you get something for free and you can still buy that Big Mac on the way home, but past that we all are going to suffer in the long run.
So, the bottom line of all of this is that I hope that when one is faced with this choice if there are future "experiments" of this type, that people will really think beyond their personal situation and the way it may benefit them in the short term. Instead think of it as a way of making a contribution to a new way of thinking. One in which we all have truly invested in making this world a better place. Or you can just choose to be a cheap son of a bitch. You make the choice.
posted by amyd | 11:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home