A corollary to 8; the argument that people are unwilling to pay
for content has been proven false by the success of I-tunes, Spotify, The
Financial Times and numerous others. You have to figure out who you’re trying
to serve and what their needs are (Hint, the answers aren’t “everybody” and
“everything”)
Amongst
the terms you encounter on the web from the more vociferous supporters of
copyright (and intellectual property in general) is
“Freetard”, a term used as an insult against anyone who downloads content
without paying for it. As well as being a fairly offensive term in its use of
the word “retard” it’s also indicative of a mind-set that tries to frame the
debate as a moral rather than business-model one. You can also frequently find
it used by those who argue that “creators” and “consumers” are two distinct
camps.
But the
main argument you get from the freetard-motif-users is that people won’t pay if
there’s a free alternative.
As I
covered back in section 4, this is demonstrably false. If you provide an
easy-to-use, 1-stop-shop with an end product that has no degradations compared
to the illegal alternative, then customers are willing to pay. This is
especially true if you can demonstrate that they’re effectively supporting the
artist directly*.
What has
changed significantly for the big content industries is the access to the
content. In the good / bad** old days the major labels / studios / publishers
effectively controlled not just what was made, but what was sold. One size
would fit all because there was only one size available and customers could
like it or lump it.
If you
wanted to see a movie you went to the cinema and watched what was showing.
Similarly the radio stations would (to a large extent) play what payola or paid
taste-makers suggested.
But
(repeat after me) these gates restricting access to content are gone. More
people are creating, marketing and distributing content than ever before. One
size no longer fits all because I can find more sizes just a mouse-click away.
An interesting article interviewing the CEO of a label now distributed by
Universal Music Group
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/03/120903fa_fact_widdicombe?currentPage=all] indicates that they’re beginning to realise
this***, they’re target product is the “hit” and their target audience is (to
be crude) the Justin Bieber fan. They’re a big player so they can aim
mass-market. If they’re smart they will adopt a different strategy for their
sub-labels that target different niches.
Hollywood
does blockbusters very well, those looking for more cerebral fare will
frequently turn to UK, French or Indy producers, again, different strategies
are needed for the different products and audiences.
So
what’s the problem?
The
problem is the largest of the legacy industries are trying to avoid having to
adapt by legislating the gates back into place. It won’t work, but it slows
down the progress of our technology and capabilities of a lot of the smaller
creators whilst they try.
Some
people seem to be stuck with the idea that biggest is best and that best of all
is being able to control & monetise every use of their content.
Unfortunately this doesn’t necessarily result in what might actually produce
the most profit.
Sometimes
coincidence works in your favour. Just as I was about to start writing this
section of the manifesto I came across the following quote from Bill Cosby, “I
don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please
everybody“.
* or
that there’s a charitable aspect to their support.
**
delete as appropriate
*** but
interestingly it’s taken a small label to introduce this concept and it’s still
not UMG’s standard operating model.
No comments:
Post a Comment