Posts Tagged ‘Business of Music’

Detroit Hip Hop Artists Capitalize on Social Networks

Monday, January 31st, 2011

You have heard from Hubert Sawyers III on this blog before and this time he is telling the story about a hip hop artist he is working with personally to build a grassroots campaign to fund his debut album via Kickstarter. From “Progress Report: Using Social Capital to Generate Startup Capital,”

When I first met David Allie Strauss aka D. Allie, I was not aware that he would become someone that I would be in constant contact with years down the road. Back then, D. was just another dude that I would share the occasional microphone. I have since retired my dreams of hip hop supremacy, but I am glad to see Dave still at it. He has impressed me with his growing cachet from years of performing, bartending and overall hustle to make his dream a reality. As a former brother-in-the-struggle in the realm of music, I realize music is mainly seen as just entertainment to the end-user and most artists aka entertainers rarely have the end-user in mind. These days, me and D. are on the verge of becoming business partners, mainly because he understands the end-user aka YOU are his boss(es). (Emphasis mine.)

Ah, if only every artist thought like this. It is important to embrace the fact that your audience is your customer, and your customer is your boss. Your job is to make them feel special, wanted, needed, (and if you are Justin Bieber), loved.

I met Dallie a year or two ago at a Tweetup as well as seeing him around town and I remember him distinctly, mostly because he was a nice person. He remembered me and bothered to take time to chat. Maybe he was thinking ahead, maybe he knew, two years ago, the importance of social capital, maybe the fact that he did not blow me off like a lot of cooler-than-though artists do is the reason I donated to his Kickstarter campaign and genuinely want to see him succeed.

Maybe? Absolutely.

A common theme I see creeping up in arts blogs as well as conversations “in the field” is a very us vs. them mentality. From the tone of the writing to the ideas expressed, there is very little that makes me want to be a part of the arts community online, despite the fact that I have every reason in the world to be wholly invested: I consider myself an artist, I come from a family of fine artists, musicians, composers, dancers, and actresses, and uh, I write a blog dedicated to the arts. And to be perfectly honest, most art blogs turn me off. There is so much complaining, so much name-calling, so much blaming for the state of affairs the arts are in, and little responsibility, little genuine community-building, and little problem-solving. (I may be missing something – so please, leave links in the comments.)

So, when I see this project, from someone I’ve met, who was nice to me, who isn’t a complainer…but a doer…I’m all about it, and you should be too.

Old Arts, New Audiences, and Why Artists Are Not Snobs

Friday, January 14th, 2011
Natalie Dessay - Amina, La Sonnambula MET
Image by dapertuttotrubadur via Flickr

What New Audiences are Expecting

Via Andrew Taylor at The Artful Manager,

During the ‘lightening round’ session at the Arts Presenters conference, performing arts facility consultant David Taylor pointed us to the challenge of traditionally designed and constructed performing arts spaces, particularly in the face of evolving consumer trends. At the heart of his presentation was the ‘Ten Trends of 20-Somethings” identified by Marian Salzman in the Huffington Post last year…they are:

1. Real-time expectations
2. More intensely local lives
3. Radical transparency
4. Expecting cheap or free everything
5. Demanding entertainment
6. Worrying about the planet
7. Seeing luxuries as standard
8. Pro-business, anti-multinational stance
9. Wanting to regulate the heck out of media bias
10. Naturally Me but aspiring to We

Among the most compelling for the performing arts are 1, 3, and 4, that challenge the traditional professional performing arts organization — which is highly scheduled, opaque in administration and process, and costly to run.

Reading this, I immediately thought of two performing arts experiences that I thought fit the “What a 20-Something Wants” bill. The first was a 2009 Met live broadcast of La Sonnambula featuring Natalie Dessay (with brilliant Mary Zimmerman direction, I might add), the second was an interactive modern dance performance choreographed by Peter Sparling, where dancers performed via live feed from a remote studio, “controlled” by Sparling’s hands manipulating them from the live stage. (By the way, it seems Sparling has evolved this concept over the years and fully embraces new technology and its interplay with his art and audiences.)

What both had in common was “live feed” and a “behind the scenes” feel. As an audience member, I felt more intensely connected to the stage action than if the third wall was more rigidly constructed such as during a more “traditional” opera or dance performance. Philistine that I am, I actually prefer the Met broadcasts to being at the Met. Not only is the price tag cheaper, you can see more stage details, to the point you feel like you might just be a lucky chorus member participating in the action. Close-ups revealed the labored breathing and singing of what sounded like a vocally struggling Dessay (my fellow audience members mused about whether an understudy would take over after intermission.) During the Sparling performance, an all-black clad videographer was on stage, shooting the choreographer’s hands, which appeared on the walls of the Kresge Auditorium in Ann Arbor, inspiring the remote dancer’s movements from afar. In short – the effect was super cool, conceptually, and artistically. Again, I was reminded of the days of being behind the scenes myself, and the prototypical “tech guys” who always wore all-black to blend in with the darkened stage during scene changes.

Why Connecting with Audiences Is Critically Important, and Why (I think) Artists are Bad at It

Audiences do not want to be treated as somehow beneath the artists. Indeed, we do not want to get the impression we actually are philistines, which artists could do a much better job at. Is it just me, or do artists often-times appear remote and snobbish? I say appear because it is so rarely the case that they are (with the exception of the primi donne e uomini who are amusingly full of themselves). I believe that more often than not, artists are not narcissists, parading on stages to self-glorify, but to glorify the art. They may seem remote off-stage because they may have just spent every ounce of their energy, and post-performance have very little left to give, or because their on-stage personality is truly pretend, an outlet, and they could be quite shy in real life.

I am focusing on this no-really-artists-aren’t-snobs issue, because I know that I usually wanted nothing more than to duck out the back door after a performance, rather than do the requisite meet-and-greet of the audience. I was usually experiencing an exhausted kind of buzz, you know the kind, like when you’ve had too much caffeine? My body would feel like it was on fire, my mind would be completely blank, and I would have to plaster a smile on my face, turn back into Milena, and somehow muster charm? Not only that, I would begin to feel guilty accepting any compliments that came my way because I never really felt responsible for whatever talent I happened to be acknowledged for, and I think many artists would share this opinion with me – we feel inspired by something greater, and that our talents are just a gift, our bodies simply the receptacle through which that talent is miraculously allowed to flow.

So, What Can Artists Do?

As always, I try to emphasize that if you hope to make a living in the arts – business must come first, and you should not harbor any delusions that your talent alone can carry you. Artists need to recognize the above issues and find a way to overcome the challenges of performing in the 21st century, particularly if they practice old world arts. Often times, the way to stay relevant is to stay connected, and for today’s audiences, that might mean reaching beyond your limitations as well as your personal autonomous zone. You need to let audiences in, in a way that will likely make you very uncomfortable. You may have to take this quite literally and reveal far more personal aspects of yourself than you would like: start a blog, post YouTube videos of your practice sessions, accept all the friend requests you can on Facebook and Twitter, admit your faults, your fears. Audiences respond to this like a child might if their favorite doll came to life, with enthusiasm and eager for more.

If this all sounds exhausting, well, it is. If it sounds largely unnecessary, well, it’s not. It’s just what people are demanding these days. You have to muster all the energy you can, not only for your art, but for the longevity of the business side of your career or for the organization you represent.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hollywood’s Love-Hate Relationship with Capitalism

Friday, June 11th, 2010
Hollywood Sign
Image via Wikipedia

I think it is fairly obvious that Hollywood is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the blend of free markets and free speech. I also think it is amazing that movies are routinely made demonizing recent Presidentstrashing the very economic mechanism that allows a director to successfully produce his film, and glorifying racists, genocidal maniacs, and homophobes without even the slightest apology or hint of irony. No one associated with these films gets jailed, stoned, or hung and the only form of censorship (to my knowledge*) is a role played freely by individual market actors by withholding their entertainment dollars, or having freedom to speak out against movies they disapprove of. (*Although, the history of the NEA clearly demonstrates the government actively censors art of all kinds when public dollars are allocated for their creation and consumption.)

Of course, many artists are not likely to share my rosy view of artistic freedom for a variety of reasons, but I maintain we have it pretty good in the free world compared to many other countries.

Economist Alex Tabarrok wrote a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal about how often Big Business is cast as the villian in movies and rarely are entrepreneurs and businessmen shown in a positive light,

Capitalism hasn’t had much good press lately, and when it comes to the movies capitalism never seems to get a fair shake. In the movies, capitalists are almost invariably cast as villains. Has someone been murdered? Are the residents of a small town dying of cancer? Is an environment being despoiled? Look no further than the CEO of some large corporation. Quick, name as many movies as you can that feature capitalists as heroes. “Batman Forever” and “Iron Man” do not count. There are a few (“The Edge,” “You’ve Got Mail”), but it’s a short list. Now name as many movies as you can that feature mass-murdering corporations and corporate villains? That one is easy: “The Fugitive,” “Syriana,” “Mission Impossible II,” “Erin Brockovich,” “The China Syndrome” and “Avatar,” to name only a few.

Most moviegoers can’t get enough of these storylines, but they are so hackneyed for my taste that I have a hard time keeping from laughing out loud in otherwise serious films where the villian is revealed as some Big Business operator where the scandal goes “all the way to the top” sometimes to the White House for extra added punch, depending on which party is portrayed in office.

Tabarrok correctly points out that,

In the big picture, art and capitalism work well together. The greatest periods of art history were often times of relative wealth and economic growth, as economist Tyler Cowen discusses in his book “In Praise of Commercial Culture.” It’s capitalism that creates the wealth that supports artistic creation, and it’s capitalism that provides artists with new technologies and media to work with. But when it comes to making particular movies, capitalism and art stand in conflict.

I find artists are often loathe to admit the benefits of the free market, though are happy to silently reap those benefits to line their pockets when their particular art is in favor with mass culture. In my opinion, this truth is one of life’s little ironies that deserves being uncovered and made fun of a bit, to shake artists from their holier-than-thou attitudes about art and business. The fact of the matter is, all successful artists (defined for purposes of this post as those who are able to earn a decent living off their art), whether they like to admit it or not, are successful business people and that means being part of the capitalistic mechanism.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Making a Profit in Music: The Mick Jagger Meme and More

Friday, May 28th, 2010
Mick Jagger - The Rolling Stones live at San S...
Image via Wikipedia

I saw this quote from Mick Jagger at least 5 times in different blogs in my Google Reader,

…people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.

I think people are fascinated about what Jagger has to say since he is one of the most wildly successful and no doubt wealthy recording musicians of all time with career longevity most artists envy. Plus, he’s rich, right? Is he saying it was just good timing? (Nah, I’m certain some of that musical genius and epic charisma had something to do with it.) However, despite Tyler Cowen’s friendly rib that Jagger is no economist, the phenomenon Jagger is talking about is no less true and is explained further by Daniel Wolf of Renewable Music,

That date [Jagger is referring to] in the late 90′s coincides rather precisely with the mass introduction of cheap digital recording equipment and media as well as the widespread use of portable digital players.  The old model of radio advertising paying royalties for recorded music which was licensed cheaply for broadcast with the idea that randomly-heard broadcasts of songs were advertisements for the purchase of albums — which allowed the listener to select particular songs on their own — pretty much collapsed at that point in time.  The technological innovations leading to ever-cheaper and ever-more accurate recording and storage capacity were inevitable but the whole thing gets ugly when one considers that the firms selling the new recording technologies were, in many cases, also publishers of the music that was inevitably going to be recorded.

The “gets ugly” Wolf is referring to is the loss of revenue to individual artists. (Check out this scary graphic re: distribution of profits in the music world via NewsObserver TechJunkie.) This is admittedly a problem for most artists aiming to have a recording and performing career. Wolf further notes, and correctly in my opinion,

Although recordings and webcasts may have some advertising function, in the end, the grand experiment [of commodifying music] may leave us back where we started, with live performance the most important — and in many cases, only — opportunity for a musician to earn money.

While I will only mention the can of worms that is the issue of Baumol’s cost disease in live performance, I think Wolf is correct in that performance is likely to be the most lucrative way to make money. It is undeniable that the business model for artists is subject to rapid change, in particular when technology is introduced and dramatically alters the landscape artists have to work with.

However, I find it curious that despite the fact that individual artists are likely to have low(er?) chances of making it big financially in music, introduction of technology has helped achieve what has long been considered one of the most troubling aspects of becoming and artist and disseminating work: access to distribution channels. Never before in history have so many people been able to access A) ways to make and distribute their own music cheaply B) ways to hear music of all kinds cheaply. This is an undoubted improvement, as far as egalitarian ideals of access to the arts are concerned.

So, are we dealing with trade-offs (sacrifices) between access and profitability? Are there other business models that could evolve to put even more control of revenues into individual artist’s hands? Is what is “wrong” with the music industry the big labels in charge promoting watered down music, or the poor tastes (and thus, demands) of mass consumer culture?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Artists: Do You Feel Compelled to Work for Free or Barter?

Monday, April 12th, 2010
A newspaper illustration depicting a man engag...
Image via Wikipedia

I found this conversation-starter on ArtsBizBlog to be a good one and enjoyed reading the comments that rolled in. The dilemma:

Sometimes it’s great to trade your art for a service or other product.

Then there are the times when you don’t really want what the other person is offering.

Matthew Kowalski wants to know: “What is the polite, friendly way of saying you would prefer to be paid with money?”

I particularly liked commenter “Carla’s” approach:

I have a barter policy written, and I can refer to it for these conversations. It is not posted for the public, but it reminds me of my boundaries.
The high points include:
Barter agreements are for no more than 50% of the price of the work.
I will discuss barter only if I am in profit that month.
I have a limited number of barter sales I will consider in the calendar year.
If I do not want what the other person is offering, I suggest a payment plan. In fact, that option is part of any barter discussion.

She’s one smart cookie. An unofficial or official barter and sales policy could go a long way to making those awkward “So, how much do you charge for something like this?” or “Would you be willing to reduce your price/barter/do this for free?” conversations go much more smoothly.

I barter my voice teaching services (in fact, that is how I scored this lovely web design as well as some incredible martial arts lessons from an Olympic athlete!) – so I think barter is appropriate in many situations where you really feel the value received meets or exceeds what you are offering (the definition of free and fair trade, actually).

However, I find truly valuable barter propositions are few and far between, especially when they are framed as “exposure.” Commenter “Erika” shares my annoyance at being asked to perform at events for mere exposure,

I get this all the time with the exchange being use of my art for ‘exposure’. I don’t want any more exposure – I want money! But they always seem to find an artist willing to do the freebie (I used to do that too, until I learned better).

Don’t get me wrong, exposure is great and incredibly important for artists who have no resume and are trying to build a reputation – but I’m not. I’m no superstar, but I have reached a level of involvement in teaching and performing where I’m satisfied and I do not need to do a bunch of free gigs to get my name out.

Furthermore, I already do a lot of free singing for things I think are important based on principle (part of my unofficial policy I suppose) – from volunteering my services for arts organizations trying to raise money, to celebrate and/or represent my ethnic heritage at a music festival, or for funerals and memorial services in particular – I often don’t feel right accepting money when I am  asked to sing for these types of events.

However, I feel that all too often, artists are undervaluing themselves and are afraid to put a high enough price tag on their talents, even though the competition can be fierce – with so many other artists willing to gig for free – at a certain point you need to start charging adequate prices for your services, especially if you are a proven talent.

A friend who is an accompanist quoted his rate to me once and I know he saw my eyes turn into giant saucers. He responded with, “Look, I’m not charging to put on a tux and show up for the 2 hour gig. I’m charging for the years I’ve spent practicing, the uniqueness of my repertoire, and the debt I’ve amassed educating myself – I am charging for my expertise, not just my body on the piano bench. That’s what doctors do!” All artists should have that kind of confidence to assess their skills and charge adequate prices for their services.

But pricing can be a confounding thing and there is no one-size-fits-all-artists solution, so if you are interested in more advice about pricing, I highly recommend some pages out of my favorite micro-business and entrepreneurism blogger’s playbook, Naomi Dunsford of IttyBiz, who writes about pricing strategies:

How Do I Figure Out Pricing?

Goldilocks on Pricing, or Why You Might Not Want to Charge $5 for your Ebook

Remember, as an artist, you are also an entrepreneur as you are often a one man or one woman show trying to prove yourself and your art/talent as a product in a mass market. You need to not only learn business skills but have the guts to implement them by assessing, then asserting your worth to potential buyers in the marketplace.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Guerrilla Arts Marketing Techniques

Saturday, April 10th, 2010
Lonely Musician
Image by AndyRamdin | Ducked.nl via Flickr

For those of us in the arts, building an audience is almost as important as, if not more important than developing your craft. You might be a genius musician, but it won’t do you much good financially if no one knows about you and, according to Greg Sandow, if you don’t make a point to connect with and get to know your potential audience.

Sandow writes,

As part of the project I’m doing at the University of Maryland, members of the school’s symphony orchestra went out to the student union, and started practicing their parts for Strauss’s Heldenleben, the big piece on their upcoming concert…Did the other students at the Student Union get more interested in the  orchestra? Did any of them come to the concert?

During my visit to the Yale School of Music last week, a student told me about something very like what the students did in Maryland…Some undergraduates started an orchestra, and held rehearsals in some public place on campus, to develop interest, and of course an audience. And in fact a lot of the other students who encountered the rehearsals seemed very interested.

And then what happened? Hardly anybody came to the performance!

So, what is the message here? Sandow is careful to note he is not making blanket assumptions about the outcomes of “guerrilla marketing” techniques such as providing free sneak previews of your work, but offers that simply showing up and giving people free stuff is not necessarily taking full advantage of the opportunity you have created.

He has some great suggestions,

It might not be enough to do guerrilla promos for an event. You have to follow up.

What would the followups be?

…you need to talk to people who watch you rehearse/practice/whatever unexpectedly in public. Make some friends. Get some names! Put these people on an email list. Make them your Facebook friends. Get them following you on Twitter.

You might also try what Peter Gregson did so successfully on the BBC Proms website last summer. Bring a video camera when you show up guerrilla-style in public, and film conversations with people hearing you who seem interested. And, maybe, with some who aren’t interested! Then put these conversations on a website, or a Facebook page. The idea is to get these people to send their friends to your page, to watch the video. And, of course, to find out about your project, as inevitably will happen.

He goes on to list a lot more great ideas, so read the full post. However, it strikes me that a lot of times artists are not short on ideas for promotion, even for free promotion – some of them just do not have the personality for promotion. Some of them are too shy to start a blog, be on YouTube or tweet about themselves. I think another reason artists do not do a great job promoting themselves is that they may simply not have enough time! It is a lot of work promoting yourself as an artist or your arts organization.

According to a fine art photographer I know who supports himself entirely with his art, he says he spends 90% of his marketing and gigging at art fairs and photography workshops. The other 10% of the time is spent shooting photos. Of the time he spends shooting, he says 90% of it is on capturing images he know will sell, and only 10% on things he likes (abstract images) that do not sell as well.

The reality is, being an artist is just like being an entrepreneur. Especially if your idea (your art) is unproven, you have to work that much harder to promote yourself. I think a lot of artists do not realize just to what extent the life of an entrepreneur is a challenge and exercise in sheer stamina.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Artist as Entrepreneur

Thursday, April 8th, 2010
Salvador Dalí 1939
Image via Wikipedia

I do not know why I did not think to post this earlier, but due to popular demand and some of the great commentary my recent post received on Brazen Careerist, I’m posting one of my graduate essays on the topic of The Artist as Entrepreneur. This is something I have tried to impart to my students as a private voice teacher and something that inspires me both as an artist and an economist. There are ample examples of commercially successful artists throughout history. Learn from them.

While I know it’s bad form to quote oneself, I only do so to entice you into reading all 20 pages of The Artist as Entrepreneur,

As an artist studying economics, I’m often met with exclamations of incredulity when someone learns of my academic pursuits.  Comments usually have to do with the misconception that artists are not of the mind to bother themselves with matters of economics and money – they must be too busy creating, inventing, and dreaming…While many artists I know also think this way, I aim to show that to be a successful artist, in addition to holding a certain level of artistic competence, an artist must develop the business and finance skills that lead to successful careers for artists and non-artists alike.  The ability to market oneself, take advantage of economies of scale, utilize commercial dissemination of one’s work, and career skill set diversification are critically important to long-term fiscal viability.  As any entrepreneur will tell you, taking risks can increase career reward, and artists are often known for taking risks creatively and in their careers.  However, there is a difference between risks that can lead to growth, and risky professional behavior that does not lead anywhere.

The story of Salvador Dalí is one of many examples of artists throughout history achieving commercial success during their lifetimes…Because Dalí welcomed the popular demand for his style of work in the market and promoted it to gain profit, he was eventually ostracized from a community of surrealist artists he associated with who felt he was straying from their cause. Artist Mark Vallen quotes the following passage from Philadelphia Museum’s Dalí exhibit catalogue,

“[Art critic Andre] Breton had long thought Dalí’s art had become too commercialized and that Dalí’s growing fame threatened the unity and agenda of the Surrealists. His growing disgust with Dalí’s financial success as an artist led him to dub Salvador Dalí with the anagrammatic nickname ‘Avida Dollars,’ describing what he perceived as Dalí’s greed for money and fame.” (Vallen, 2005)

Other [commercially successful] artists include: Rubens, Tiziano, Rembrandt, Lenbach, Stuck, Picasso, and Beuys.  Composers and musicians include Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Wagner, Domingo, Pavarotti, Carreras, and Callas.  Authors and playwrights include Shakespeare, Goethe, Dickens, Hauptmann, Brecht, Thomas Mann, and Jane Austen.  All of these artists became wealthy due to commercial success during their lives (Frey, 2000 and Cantor, 2006).

There is no panacea that will solve the many difficulties of pursuing a career as a creative artist.  Though author Miguel de Cervantes is well known for his work Don Quixote, he struggled to find commercial success during his lifetime and was poor for most of his career.  However, his quote from Don Quixote, “It is the part of a wise man to keep himself to-day for to-morrow, and not to venture all his eggs in one basket” is apropos when thinking about one’s career or investments.  The approach to diversify and mitigate risk that has served great commercially successful artists and private sector entrepreneurs can serve today’s artists as well.

In the discipline of finance, it is common for investment professionals to speak of portfolio diversification, which is a method of allocating one’s investments among a variety of styles and vehicles based on an individual’s risk profile or tolerance in order to choose investments that match an individual’s willingness to bear a certain amount of risk.  “The principle of diversification tells us that spreading an investment across many assets will eliminate some, but not all, of the risk” (Jordan and Miller, 2009)

In the paper I elaborate on all these ideas and more! There are pictures too! There might be typos (I’ve already caught one, can you?)! Mainly, I hope what I’ve written can serve as inspiration for artists and fodder for debate on this important topic.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Business Models for Artists: It’s Not a Day Job, It’s Diversification

Thursday, March 25th, 2010
Leonardo da Vinci is well known for his creati...
Image via Wikipedia

Almost every working artist has a love/hate relationship with The Day Job. It’s the job we begrudgingly refer to with the tagline, “Hey, it pays the bills.” Is having a day job a hindrance to a creative career, or can it help an artist discover new competencies and diversify their skill set as well as income stream?

I think artists need to stop beating themselves up about their supposed failures to make a full-time living in a particular craft and instead, understand that by working in a day job or in a variety of industries, they are diversifying their skill set and making themselves much more valuable in all their career pursuits.

For some artists, the concept of a day job is not a problem, but finding the time and money to practice their art is. There was a time when I told myself I would be willing to go broke to become an opera singer. I quickly realized I was not cut out for the lifestyle and fiercely competitive world of a hopeful young emerging artist and decided that some combination of day job with flexibility to perform when I could was ideal for me.

There is no magic formula to deciding how much of one’s time and resources can be devoted to beginning and maintaining an artistic career, which I think is akin to the capital investment needed for a small start-up company. Each new fledgling artists is an unproven idea. Even if they are exceptionally talented, no one knows about them yet and exposure is one of the hardest parts of being an entrepreneur.

I came across an article of interest for those of you who are struggling with leading the double life of an artist with a day job.

Managing the Day Job” asks, “Does being a creative only half the time make you less creative than those who are creative full-time?” The article goes on to discuss the demands of balancing a creative career with the demands and expectations of the day job career. I know many artists who excel in their day jobs, and get opportunities for advancement they have to turn down because it would mean “marrying” their job, and they are not willing to do that, even if it means a pay increase. These are the tough decisions many artists have to face until they can make their creative pursuits a full-time career.

Some of them never do – and that’s okay. I’m one of those people, and ever since I graduated from my undergrad in music I’ve had some combination of day job/creative job in various proportions, but I’ve never taken a foot completely out of either. I’ve always thrived on having a variety of jobs, so this type of career balance really suits me.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Music Pricing and The Free Market

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
Compact Disc
Image via Wikipedia

Oops, the free market did it again. That is, made goods cheaper due to competition and innovation. Why we think this model only works in the music industry but not in others is beyond my comprehension, but hey, apparently it should make you think twice before downloading full albums on iTunes.

From Billboard,

The Universal Music Group could rewrite U.S. music pricing when it tests a new frontline pricing structure, which is designed to get single CDs in stores at $10, or below.

Beginning in the second quarter and continuing through most of the year, the company’s Velocity program will test lower CD prices. Single CDs will have the suggested list prices of $10, $9, $8, $7 and $6.

For those of you who like to watch “Big Business” squirm, check out competitor reactions,

On March 16, executives at the other majors were nervous about the UMG move, calling around to accounts for information on the move. Privately, some appeared annoyed by the move. “Why does Universal feel the need to get below $10?” a senior distribution executive at a competing major asked.

I’d ask him, “When was the last time anyone bought a physical CD other than because it wasn’t available for immediate download for less?”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Arts and Econ Links of Interest

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010
Graph of CO 2  (green), reconstructed temperat...
Image via Wikipedia
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
 
© Powerered by Wordpress | Custom Template Design by NBurman Design