Or is it. That’s the question behind something I saw on Brand New. One recent study shows that Anderson’s Holy Grail of social media theories may not be born out by the evidence, saying that maybe the old metrics were more righterer than people first thought. (In this case, we’re talking music sales.)It’s a very interesting point which then led me to a previous article challenging Wired’s Kevin Kelly that 1,000 followers are enough for a musical artist to make a living from. Both points are related, and if you allow me a little latitude your honor, I’ll connect the dots in a moment.
These articles are absolutely worth checking out if any of this stuff is what you do for a living. (Or claim to based on your glorified Twitter profile.) If true, a lotta evangelists are going to be looking for work.
Before that happens though, two things I need answers on...
1) The stats. While it’s hard to argue with real numbers (80% of sales coming from 52,000 songs), the stats are based on economist Will Page’s research using a single undisclosed music source. Like what? Last.fm? Rhapsody? Amazon? iTunes? Really would help to know.
2) The 1,000 followers notion. In addition to the belief that 1,000 followers supporting an artist is not enough, Page believes technology has only allowed musicians to assume control of production and distribution—not helped them grow. It goes on to say that the only thing that counts is the old model of having one massive audience to drive sales.
As for the former, I have no way to know what particular service(s) the numbers are based on. In an Absolute™ world, every music site that streams or sells music would be tracked for a year or more to give a clearer picture.
As for the latter? Not really sure I buy that either. 1,000 is enough depending on the artist, and well, who only has 1,000 followers, right? Eventually, you will build that massive audience if the talent’s there. While you may not get that initial hit of 100,000 downloads, building a fanbase over time can get you decent numbers, which in turn translates monetarily at some point.
This isn’t about economics though.
It’s about artists now who have an option to survive and thrive where before, they didn’t. (There’s a great comment on this page by Bryce Prewitt which explains how musicians are doing this. It’s definitely not via old school A&R ways.)
From my own experience, I’m working with an artist who, less than three years ago, had no online presence and was working as in intern in the agency I worked at. Today, he has 12,000+ followers on MySpace, averages 25,000+ plays on a given single for each of several CDs, plays local clubs in NYC to a rabid fanbase, and all without any help from a major label. With all the musicians out there, how could a record label keep track of, let alone build buzz for each and every one of them like that?
What sayeth you, music freaks. What matters most here: A traditional big buzz up front or slow and steady on the internetz?
Tags: Long Tail, Chris Anderson
2 comments:
The thing that drives me the most crazy about social media metrics is that people keep trying to measure the effects the way they do a direct marketing campaign. This is not a medium based on measurable CPA or CPC. I would say measurement is closer to brand metrics, where we gauge eyeballs and impressions, but know more about these individuals since we are actually engaging with them. And the value is not in the measurable click-through-to-buy, but in the ability to now spread the word about promotions or brand messaging in a grassroots sense. Social media is about loyalty in its purest sense where people are actually loyal and do some of your marketing for you, rather than the glorified bribes that we currently call loyalty programs.
Stinging articles, all three. I'd like to posit, however, that the successes of netflix and amazon.com are due largely to the long tail, so let's not dismiss the theory outright. Still, I'll respect the critique as possessing some merit: a refresher if nothing else.
As for how to build a fanbase: the slow and steady on the nets theory, I believe, was borne out by Lil Wayne in 2008. I'll explain. Last year Vibe magazine published an article entitled the 77 best Lil Wayne songs of 2007.(vibe hides its content so here's a link to a free rip). The songs on that list were almost exclusively released for free on the web via mixtapes and "leaked" albums. This year, Wayne released his studio album, selling more copies in the first week than any album in three years.
Of course, this is a man with superior talent, yada, yada. But article after article chided him for being so relentless with his leaked release schedule. But when Wayne raps that he's "approving million dollar deals from my iPhone," and blogging for ESPN, well, guess who coming out on top? All he needs to do now is cross-collateralize his base with a famous athlete and he'll be solid for years to come. Oops, did that too.
Now, Lil Wayne had way more than 1000 fans prior to last year, and has been in the game for years. But I can't think of a better use of social media and content with little commercial value in creating a juggernaut.
Post a Comment