Whether its the labels or the musicians who adapt first, it still seems like the environment into which we are expected to accustom ourselves is full of unknowns. Perhaps this is why its not so easy to find the Clarity about digital strategizing that I keep talking about. Hm.

For now, I'll go back to just trying to listen and scout this landscape.

It's worth noting that as Lauren from Ume points out, they did just as well as any other band on the WOXY list whilst remaining unsigned, and also she notes that agents, labels etc are still in an old school mind set. And this is worth noting too – for an indie band signed to an indie label, achieving CD sales is just as difficult as for an unsigned band. I know of labels who can hardly achieve 1000 CD sales these days. In fact getting to that number is seen as a success. The royalties from a 1000 sales are not going to provide a living wage. Meanwhile Lauren sells out of her own CDs and keeps every $$ of profit. I argue she's better off.

As for the record label biz being “top dog” as you say, I have to ask are you sure? If I look at the Billboard sales chart I note that Sade remains number 1, 3 weeks in a row even with declining sales each week. So baby boomers who buy say, 2 CDs a year, are keeping a small part of the record biz in $$s. I think Sade's 3rd week sales were around 138,000 units, which is not bad, but that means that whoever is at number 100 on the chart must have sold about 200 copies right?

So when you ask of me “How will web/social-networking/mobile-music compete with the traditional model, which is still top dog?” I can only reply that the traditional model is on the brink of collapse and is an unsustainable business model. And I also would refer you back to Eno – “The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you’d be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate – history’s moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it.”

The selling of recorded music will be replaced. I wrote about that here http://www.pampelmoose.com/2009/04/the-end-of-t... and I stick by it today, almost a year later. Younger generations of fans – the hypothetical 8 year old girl I often mention – will not be buying music via the old traditional models that we have been used to. As Rishad Tobaccowalla says “The future will not fit in the container of the past.”

So who evolves first, the labels or the musicians? I'd say it better be the latter.

Whether its the labels or the musicians who adapt first, it still seems like the environment into which we are expected to accustom ourselves is full of unknowns. Perhaps this is why its not so easy to find the Clarity about digital strategizing that I keep talking about. Hm.

For now, I'll go back to just trying to listen and scout this landscape.

It's worth noting that as Lauren from Ume points out, they did just as well as any other band on the WOXY list whilst remaining unsigned, and also she notes that agents, labels etc are still in an old school mind set. And this is worth noting too – for an indie band signed to an indie label, achieving CD sales is just as difficult as for an unsigned band. I know of labels who can hardly achieve 1000 CD sales these days. In fact getting to that number is seen as a success. The royalties from a 1000 sales are not going to provide a living wage. Meanwhile Lauren sells out of her own CDs and keeps every $$ of profit. I argue she's better off.

As for the record label biz being “top dog” as you say, I have to ask are you sure? If I look at the Billboard sales chart I note that Sade remains number 1, 3 weeks in a row even with declining sales each week. So baby boomers who buy say, 2 CDs a year, are keeping a small part of the record biz in $$s. I think Sade's 3rd week sales were around 138,000 units, which is not bad, but that means that whoever is at number 100 on the chart must have sold about 200 copies right?

So when you ask of me “How will web/social-networking/mobile-music compete with the traditional model, which is still top dog?” I can only reply that the traditional model is on the brink of collapse and is an unsustainable business model. And I also would refer you back to Eno – “The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you’d be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate – history’s moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it.”

The selling of recorded music will be replaced. I wrote about that here http://www.pampelmoose.com/2009/04/the-end-of-t... and I stick by it today, almost a year later. Younger generations of fans – the hypothetical 8 year old girl I often mention – will not be buying music via the old traditional models that we have been used to. As Rishad Tobaccowalla says “The future will not fit in the container of the past.”

So who evolves first, the labels or the musicians? I'd say it better be the latter.

First, as one of the commentors on the aforementioned SXSW Interview post, I just want to reiterate that I was not among the people looking for “specifics” or “tactics”, but was looking to hear you speak more to the uniqueness of a Digital Strategy, and what separated the smart users from the ones who don't get it.

Would it be innacurate to say that this is a concept that you/Fight see as a continuing work in progress?

A large part of my original concern and curiosity is now amplified as a result of the Ume interview here. As you say yourself, it can be read two ways. Ume are either ahead of the curve, tirelessly laying the groundwork necessary to attract more attention than they have thus far… or they are simply rejecting a business model for their band that they know would generate more ROI because it is considered “old” and restricting.

Its the perrenial question of the web era; does it make more sense to stay independent, or sign with a partner that has more resources? I really don't want to say that the smarter thing to do would be to just get a record deal. But still, after almost 10 years of waiting for the web to democratize music promotion and eliminate Label's gatekeeper status, there are STILL no examples of artists who have made it on their own and can compete with signed artists. And here we have an example of a really great independent band admitting as much (even if they prefer it that way, which is of course their prerogative).

If this simple fact was not the reality, then I'm sure you would face far fewer grumpy musicians asking for more from you.

So, thinking out loud here, I am going to say that I think the only “Digital Strategy” worth its salt is one that is able to maneuver an artist in front of booking agents, music directors, and other media folk with the SAME EFFECTIVENESS as other artists with label representation. This is the standard that we should aspire to, otherwise, whats the point? If Ume can't ever expect to compete with signed artists and that's their goal…..well…

What I'm hearing you, and others, say is that 'We're not there yet, but we will be if we keep working on it.' I agree with that notion. BUT, if we are to stay energized about digital-strategies-for-indie-artists-as-an-alternative-to-traditional-means, then we need to see clearer signs of progress and hear clearer articulations from thinkers and doers like yourself about WHY and HOW this will work.

Not, I hasten to add, what any given artist should do or what tactics to employ. I'm talking big picture. How will web/social-networking/mobile-music compete withe the traditional model, which is still top dog?

Thats the question that generates critiques of your ideas.

But hey, keep up the good work!

A couple of observations:

The first is you have shown us two very different artists with–surprise–two different sets of tactics supporting their–surprise again–different strategies. But, of course, that shouldn't be surprising, at all. Would you hire a famous heavy metal producer for your band's next hard-bop jazz record? (Well, maybe, if you wanted to chart some new ground…) Musicians will spend weeks, months or years trying to find the guitar pedal that's “just right” for them and their music, but they expect a complete marketing strategy (that will work for them) in a box from Target for $29.99? The thing is, even if marketing and business aren't your chosen art-forms, they *are* art-forms, in so far as they only really work when really talented people work really hard to craft a completely unique and custom-made approach, and not always even then. Musicians hire people (or barter, or get friends to help for free, or do it themselves) to do their lights, sound, production, tech, booking, recording, repair their instruments, fix their van and everything else. Anyone coming to you claiming they will “take care of everything,” you'd better ask, “Yeah, for how much?” Ume is spot on. And brave to not believe the too good to be true stories.

The second is that I have found that this stuff is usually both a lot simpler and a lot more complicated than people treat it. The fundamental outline is bone-head simple: What have you got? Who wants it? How would they like to get it? How can you get it to them? How can you get them to want more and tell their friends? All in a way that brings in more than it costs you? So many fancy-schmancy agency/marketing types either forget the basics or think they can know the answers to these questions without actually asking them. That's why I love what you say about “the big idea.” It's like trying to figure out the right bass part for a song–does a good player go away for 4 weeks, then come back and play the songwriter “the ultimate bass part ever,” only to have them go, “Uh, thanks, but, uh, no?” Or do they try this, try that, see what works, ditch what didn't, woodshed a bit, try some more, take the drummer's crazy ass idea and combine it with something they heard in a dream until–after more hard work–they have a part that makes the song come together like magic?

THAT is the complicated part–answering the questions, making sure you're asking the right ones, of the right people, that you're getting answers that are accurate, that give you information you can act on, and then acting on that information in such a way that enables you to change course when the answers change (which they always will) and especially when the questions you need to ask change (which they always should). Continuing with the musical metaphor, that's what I think your iterative approach can provide–a method for trying this, trying that and fiddling until you get something that works. And after you've taken the song out on tour for a while, that bass part will get tweaked and refined some more, and you'll probably be able to play it a lot better, too!

It does take patience and an attention span that some bands (and, sadly, a lot of marketers) don't have. And some times the first thing that pops into your head is brilliant just the way it is. But if it's not, what then? I think your underlying point remains, which is, for today's music/art/entertainment industry, what choice do artists (and most other kinds of businesses) really have?

If there even are other options, as in Ume's case, they usually aren't very good ones.

Thanks for having the patience to keep pointing that out.