Your Odds In the Digital Music World

[ggalen]

Looking to have a hit recording?Here's a snippet from a Harvard Business Review research article investigating the impact of digital distribution of music and DVDs. It concluded that even with online distribution, the hits still get most of the attention and make most of the money."In my most recent correspondence with managers at Nielsen SoundScan, I learned that of the 3.9 million digital tracks sold in 2007 (the large majority for 99 cents each through Apple iTunes) an astonishing 24% sold only one copy, and 91%—3.6 million tracks—sold fewer than 100 copies."Sounds like it's a good idea to do it primarily for the pure joy of making the music, not as a ticket to fame and fortune.

[billg]

Well, at least I know now that I'm in the company of 91% of my peers. Whew, for a while there I was thinking I was a loser!

[ggalen]

Jun 27, 2008, 12:55pm, billg wrote:Well, at least I know now that I'm in the company of 91% of my peers. Whew, for a while there I was thinking I was a loser!Bill, that's a great point. Nobody is really winning big unless they are already a musical celebrity with a hit.

[mojobone]

"Never tell me the odds!"- Han SoloSo iTunes is about as successful, historically speaking, as, say...Warner Bros?Seriously, I don't think this has changed much in my lifetime, and I don't think it will. 80% of everything is bullpuckey, and that's being generous. Before the digital era, if 10% of a label's releases made money, Clive got to keep his job. You can't put lipstick on a pig.(well, you could, but the gomers are still gonna smell something) The only effective marketing strategy that's ever been demonstrated is 'word of mouth', touring your kachingas off, and payola. You probably need all three, but you still have to make great music.

[milfus]

yeah but, that includes all the people who don't know scales, and cant hit notes, write poems with no music and call it a spoken word song, and so on and yadda yadda.I would say once you hit a certain bar, the odds change immensely, my sound click page averaged 2000 hits a week while it was up, and I was selling downloads left and right, all together I would say well over 100 copies, all in all about 6k paid downloads over an 8 month period, and honestly, I am not "great" I am barely toeing the line at adequete, I just dont settle for sub par mixing or leave in bad notes and stuff. If you have stuff worth payin for, and an easy route to it, all you have to do is catch a few ears and it will find you.

[ggalen]

Jun 27, 2008, 5:45pm, mojobone wrote:"Never tell me the odds!"- Han SoloSo iTunes is about as successful, historically speaking, as, say...Warner Bros?...The only effective marketing strategy that's ever been demonstrated is 'word of mouth', touring your kachingas off, and payola. You probably need all three, but you still have to make great music.mojobone,Yes, I remember reading that something like 97% of ALL albums released in the pre-digital age failed to make back their production costs.I agree with your "tried-and-true" methods of touring, and generating "buzz", from making great music.Except I don't think popular music has to be "great" in the strict musical sense; it has to be great at emotionally moving the average person...not other good musicians.I've made the mistake over the years of trying to suitably impress my fellow musicians. But they're the toughest audience, and they don't really count. It's the average audience member who counts.

[ggalen]

milfus,I am not convinced that getting really good musically makes "the odds change immensely". As mojobone remembers, even in the 80s the vast majority of most signed bands did not have any success.There were simply many more people making good-enough music than there were people to buy it. And it's only become more that way today.I wish I were wrong.

[mojobone]

There was a time when technologies and markets were in such a state of flux that the music industry's 'old guard' couldn't keep up and just started throwin' stuff at the wall to see if anything'd stick. They were losin' market share and bleedin' bad. A lot of those 'talking' records got made, lots of people who knew literally nothing about music were offered label deals just because they looked like the demographic the majors wanted, no needed to sell to. This happened around about the time the Baby Boomers were hittin' puberty, but does any of this sound familiar?

[mojobone]

Quote:There were simply many more people making good enough music than there were people to buy it. And it's only become more that way today.Don't know if I'd agree with that. Good enough is a moving target, the hardware required to make a decent enough recording is much cheaper and more widely available today. Lots of Boomers are makin' better music today than ever, but are irrelevant to the bulk of the market that buys recordings. (that'd be the Miley Cyrus generation)The record industry had some big years in both the eighties and the nineties, the market is always getting bigger, but market share (for the majors) is declining rapidly. Meanwhile most folks have better access to really crappy music than in the entire history of recorded music. I think what's missing is a really good filter, but I think it may be starting to take shape....

[stephen]

well... hmm... not sure what to say as an indie artiste when I launch my Cd I was well aware of the hard work involved to get it out there. cd baby was a great option with links to people and places I cannot reach anytime soon. Sales online have slowed a bit... but if this info is true then for us indie it's that bit harder. Guess that's why we should join TAXI