Midem White Paper: “The Real Cost Of Direct To Fan”
Last week Midem unveiled the first of a five part series on "The Real Cost of Direct to Fan". This white paper is a research project of Good Lizard Media and the first installment seems to tie in well with such concepts as Mike Masnick's CwF + RtB = $$$ formula. DETAILS:
The Real Cost of Direct To Fan – midem-exclusive White Paper
"The Real Cost of Direct to Fan" is a midem-sponsored white paper by Good Lizard Media that is being released in 5 sections via the midemblog:
"Discover…the 'Direct To Fan' (D2F) concept, where D2F happens, its place within the music business, and who the major players are. As well as looking at how it relates to the various different revenue models implemented by artists, managers, online stores and record labels."
In discussing, but not clearly defining, the concept of Direct To Fan, this paper focuses on transactions that give fans the "feeling" of buying directly from the artist though they might be using third-party tools.
Unfortunately, the paper does not present a working definition of Direct To Fan, though it does state that a key issue is the artist controlling the pricing which is a problematic distinction. It also doesn't clearly distinguish between the involvement of record labels and related legal entities with ownership shares vs. third party tools that may charge a fee or take a percentage, though such a distinction seems crucial to commonly held definitions of Direct To Fan.
The initial installment goes on to look at "drivers of Direct To Fan" sales via artists' websites using "data across the online stores for 25 medium to large sales artists in the UK over the period of a year." They find that live shows and album releases are the biggest drivers of DtF sales though they claim that album releases themselves are not the driver so much as bundling the album with other products. Even more importantly, in their analysis, is that bands pay more attention to their fans during periods of new releases and tours.
The study then maintains that Direct To Fan requires two things to succeed, creating a sense of "closeness between artist and fan" leading to the urge to buy and offering something that "fits to this demand" aka Mike Masnick's "Connect with Fan and give them a Reason to Buy" formula.
I look forward to seeing the rest of this series and what it reveals. If you have questions about the methodology or details, please include them in the comments and I'll see what the folks at Good Lizard Media have to say.
Hypebot contributor Clyde Smith is a freelance writer and blogger. He blogs about web business models at Flux Research and the world of dance at All World Dance. To suggest music services and related topics for review at Hypebot, please contact: clyde(at)fluxresearch(dot)com.
Geez, if I wanted to hear the shrill ignorance of the Techdirt echo chamber I would just go to that site. Nothing more pertinent than the opinions of failed authors who couldn’t fund their own Kickstarter campaigns, consultants for failing dance labels, programmers who don’t “believe” in copyright while they work on closed-source projects, and the veiled advertising for Floor 64 which promotes the abolition of copyright and IP while hiding services it says others should give away behind a paywall (I’m sorry, “lectures”.)
Can Hypebot also please start breathlessly reporting on every movement of Amanda Palmer… wait. Too late?
Goodbye Hypebot. Unsubscribe.
Wow, that’s a really bizarre and short-sighted response.
Masnick gets cited because he was smart enough to articulate an easily passed along insight regarding the situation that results when abundance of both products and information (via the web) changes the ability for a few to so easily monopolize the attention of the many.
Effectively building a relationship with customers and then creating products that fulfill the needs of those customers is just smart business. Pointing to how market creation and product production based on the emerging context and articulating it in a simple formula is how you get your name attached to that insight.
That’s the power of naming something. But if all you can see is me cosigning Techdirt, then you’re totally missing what I’m doing and where I’m coming from. I have no relationship with Masnick, no reason to believe that I will have in the future and I’ve never referenced him beyond this particular concept for which he gained recognition.
What I hear is that you’re too hung up on your assumptions about who has power rather than who has done a good job of marketing a simple concept that clearly fits the context we now see emerging for creative producers across the board.
When you have marketed your insights well then, when other people find information that supports your articulation, it will be referenced.
It would be very weak of me to not notice the connection between the initial material from Good Lizard Media and a simple well-marketed “equation” that is likely to survive once Masnick’s gone.
Try reading Made To Stick and rethink why he was cited here. You’re totally jumping to incorrect assumptions like a conspiracy theorist who hasn’t bothered to study the available data or a statistician gone awry with correlation fever. Maybe you should read Freakonomics first!
That said, what part of connecting with your fans and selling them stuff they’ll want is ignorant?
We’ll miss you, Patrik. Not.
The fact that ‘direct to fan’ hasn’t been given a ‘working definition’ is not a bad thing, in my opinion. As soon as you define a concept, you box it into semantic parameters which limit it in the scope of its application. Furthermore, it would be arrogant for any author to think they’ve considered every case study and application, and distilled an all-encompassing conceptualisation.
By emphasising the end game- the goal of eliciting positive feelings toward the artist, readers are free to take D2F at the conceptual level and play with it, tailor it and make it work in any which way they desire.
I take your point. Premature definition can definitely obscure one’s vision.
On the other hand, a working definition for a white paper seems necessary to clarify the authors’ intent without having to restrict how others define D2F or how the authors might define it in the future.
I think it’s important to be clear about what you’re doing so that discussion doesn’t end up being one of those barroom exchanges in which people argue not because they disagree but because they have different definitions of something and spend all their time talking past each other.