April 23rd, 2007
Debunking the Myths of Peer to Peer in Regards to CD sales
It is official, the recent post I made, Eyeball Records brings down music blog/pirating site, Kinixtion, has the most comments of any post we have ever made on IndieHQ with well over 100 comments coming in over just a few short days. I have read nearly every single comment and it goes without saying that this topic polarizes our readers. Having read all of the comments, I thought I could use my experience of running a record label for nearly 12 years to share my thoughts.
I can say without a doubt that file-sharing, peer to peer, downloading, and copying has greatly affected my business. I struggle to sell 1,000 copies of releases by my biggest acts and know that if my acts had this kind of momentum in the mid to late 90’s, I would be selling 5 to 10 times as many records as I do now. I witness the fact that people are singing along to nearly ever song my bands play, but the numbers just don’t seem to work out with regards to music sales. One at this point would argue that file-sharing seems to be helping the bands and in some ways, I would agree. Sure, it must be a nice feeling to be in a band and experiencing excited fans singing along to your every word. As a label though, we cannot keep at this pace of declining sales and hope to continue to release music. For most bands, the financial help of a record label allows bands to record at bigger/better studios and in some cases with producers. Without that help, many bands would have to record at smaller studios or do their own, home-recording which doesn’t always lead to the best sound fidelity. Sure, some of my favorite recordings were done D.I.Y. at home studios, but take a look at the liner notes of most of your favorite releases (if you have liner notes). Engineers and Producers like Ross Robinson, Matt Bayles, Ed Rose, Matt Squire, Ryan Greene, Kurt Ballou, and J Robbins (the list could go on forever) cost a pretty penny and most bands/acts just don’t have the funds to hire these kinds of producers and in many cases, it is the production that makes some of these albums sound absolutely incredible.
One of the biggest arguments I heard were people saying that they are sick of paying $15 to $18 for an album when there is only one or two good tracks. They argue that they file-share so they can spend some time with the album and see if it is worth paying for. I agree that retail prices for CDs are way too high and I agree that the prices need to come down. With Suburban Home, we are working with our distributors to lower our retail price to $9.98/$10.98 for our full length CDs. Also, if you go to our website and buy directly from us, you can get any 5 Suburban Home albums for $25.00 which is only $5.00 per album. If and obviously this is a big if, we can get enough music fans to legally purchase our albums at $5.00 each, there is enough money in there to recoup expenses and pay our acts royalties. The argument that you need to listen to the band’s albums before spending your hard-earned money on a full length CD is a good one. I have noticed that most labels these days are offering full album streams of their releases so that fans can give it a good listen. At Suburban Home, we have a listening station, where you can listen to most of our newest releases as many times as you want for months a time as I, too, value the importance of listening to an album before making a purchase. I can also argue that there are other affordable options to legally pay for music. Emusic is the best example as their subsription plan starts out at $10.00 per month and with that, you get 30 DRM-free mp3s which is almost 3 albums. As the industry reinvents itself (because it has to), there will be more and more affordable ways to get legal music.
At $9.98 to $10.98 for a full length CD, this is honestly the best value for your entertainment dollar. When you go to see a new movie in the theaters, your $6 to $10 gets 2 hours of enjoyment. With an album that you absolutely love, you can listen to an album thousands of times(hours and hours of entertainment); for that small amount, I find value in having a soundtrack to our lives.
A number of the comments called Eyeball Records and the entire industry Greedy for wanting to be paid for music. There is nothing greedy about trying to make your small business survive. I have a wife and a child; a mortgage; and many more expenses related to the business and if my wanting to eek out a living is greedy, then all businesses for that matter are greedy. You don’t fault the coffee shop for trying to make a living, you don’t fault the restaurant for trying to make ends meet, why then can you fault a record label for trying to make it work? Indie labels have always existed to bring music fans incredible records that the majors would never touch and the only way we can continue to do this is by having our records sell. Without the ability to recoup our expenses and make a little money, indie labels will become extinct and with that, many of your future favorite albums will never come to be.
One of the other biggest arguments for file-sharing was that it provides labels with great exposure. Sure, file-sharing can give bands good exposure, but when that exposure leads to zero or little record sales, this in no way helps the label. There are entire generations of music fans that have never paid a cent for music and don’t even conceive of the idea of music having value. This is a big problem. If music cost nothing to produce, distributing the music for free would make sense. But when you have to pay for recordings, manufacturing, promotions, and general overhead, no label can exist from distributing the music for free. What other industry attempts to sell something their customers actively get for free?
I am sure that this post will do little to convince most file-sharers, but I do hope that everyone who reads this takes home one point. File-sharing does in fact hurt record sales which in turn hurts indie labels. I realize that most people have limited entertainment dollars, but I do ask that you please consider how this affects bands and labels. I also ask that when you file-share music, if you truly love the release, show your support by buying a legal copy. Supporting your favorite releases this way will trickle down to bands and labels and will ensure many more releases for the future.
I know that things will continue to change in the industry as new business models are introduced and accepted, but in the meantime, please realize that there is a cost involved with your ability to get music for free.
I am more than happy to discuss this over the phone(303-292-0784) and/or over email if you have a point that you want to discuss more thoroughly.
Written by Virgil Dickerson
Subscribe
View more articles about
On April 23rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
My Thoughts on File-Sharing, Peer to Peer, Copying at Suburban Home Records said:
[…] If you were ever interested in the perspective of a small, indie label in regards to file-sharing and illegal downloading, just click the link to s post I made on IndieHQ. I realize that having these opinions won’t make me very popular, but I feel that if you find a band or release or label that you love, it shouldn’t be too much to ask for support. With Suburban Home, you can buy any 5 of our releases for $25.00 and at $5.00 per album, we can eek out a living and pay our acts if we can get enough people to support this. […]
On April 23rd, 2007 at 9:37 am
Daniel Nicolas said:
1. We’re getting screwed at the movie theatres too. $10 for the ticket, $8 for the small popcorn, $5 for a small drink, and that’s when you go by yourself.
2. “A number of the comments called Eyeball Records and the entire industry Greedy for wanting to be paid for music. There is nothing greedy about trying to make your small business survive. I have a wife and a child; a mortgage; and many more expenses related to the business and if my wanting to eek out a living is greedy, then all businesses for that matter are greedy. You don’t fault the coffee shop for trying to make a living, you don’t fault the restaurant for trying to make ends meet, why then can you fault a record label for trying to make it work?”
Most majors screw their artists, screw the fans, and charge $$$. We’ve been brought up in a generation where the term ‘record label’ is a dirty word. Where the band gets nothing and the label everything.
I’m gonna pay extra and tip the mom & pop coffee shop. I’m gonna tip too. I’m gonna tip my favorite waiter. and i’m gonna buy the artist’s records that i love. so many of the cds that i download i delete after. because it’s not what i want or it just plain sucks. not an insult to your artists, but generally speaking,.
And if there’s a label i love, i buy through them. i buy directly from Barsuk time and time again. And I know indie labels try really hard to separate themselves from the majors but this HAS to be a selling and marketing point. that you love us and our favorite bands back.
I don’t know what’s on your label but just the fact that your blogging puts you on the right track as far as rep goes AND the fact that you sell directly for cheaper than the box stores, …
the shins album leaked in October. and yet, last time i checked soundscan, it was still selling very well and in the top 10. in fact, i’ve bought 3 copies.
Everything you brought up in this paragraph:
One of the biggest arguments I heard were people saying that they are sick of paying $15 to $18 for an album when there is only one or two good tracks…..
is an excellent indicator that the industry is figuring out things and as more and more indie labels do these things, you will see sales go up.
all in all, i agree! the little guy is ALWAYS going to be hurt the most, no matter how much those big guys complain, it’s the little guys that bear the largest burden.
On April 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
d said:
This is wonderful. Well said all around!
On April 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Jayme Gonz said:
this post is great. i am very against illeagl downloading for the fact that you are taking money rioght out of the hands of muscians,labels,and every other person in the chain of command in the industry. people fail to understand that the band is the last person to get paid and by the time it gets down to them its far from glamourous. people wouldnt like if i went into there job and deducted 20$ a week from their pay check. which in turn is what pirates are doing.
On April 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
Corey said:
I was just thinking, perhaps one of the main solutions for an indie label to thrive at present time is to sign bands and market them toward a different crowd, mainly an older crowd. My dad is 50, and he would never even think of downloading a cd. In fact, although he still buys the long-running rock band CDs, a lot of what he is listening to now, he heard on NPR and went out and bought their CD. And looking through a lot of these CDs, most of them are on an indie label. The other day he was just asking me about The Arcade Fire in fact, and they are the kind of band I could see crossing over into the 30+ market. I know there arne’t a ton of bands like that out there, but it certainly wouldn’t be wise for a label to bank their future on a pop-punk band or some kind of screamo stuff that won’t matter in a year or two. On top of this, older people typically have more money than us youngsters, and in turn, income they can use for entertainment. Just a thought….
On April 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Bill said:
Gas costs money. ads cost money. websites cost money. graphic design cost money, so do “viral campaigns.” Although many of the Eyeball detractors will deny it, consumers demand brand ubiquity that money provides for. Without it, bands don’t have two nickels to rub together to promote themselves… label involved or not.
With that said, I don’t believe that people can make money selling music anymore.It’s all about the collateral properties such as merchandise, and booking. If you notice, the big move today is how majors are now moving to acquire major managment companies and become “venture capitalists for artists,” as I’ve written about for about a year both here and on my former blog, No Revolution.
On April 24th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Martin said:
In 2007, the kids prefer to buy a new computer or a new iPod… From their tender age, they live into an electronic environment. They have needs for electronics that we didnt had when we were younger. A PSP is more expensive than a slinky!
When I was in high school, in the late ’90’s and early ’00’s, electronics were more expensive so if I wanted to hear music, i went to the record store or if I wanted to watch a movie, i went to rent or buy a DVD.
Now, if a kid doesnt have a cellphone and expensive clothes, the kid will be a loser. Social pressure always existed and will always exist but still, just a couple of years ago, it wasn’t very expensive to be “hip”. The minimum wage is the same but the needs are higher.
A kid with not much money,. if he has the option of buying a computer with which he can keep in touch with his friends, listen/watch to all the music/movies he wants, finds his next date, play games etc OR to buy dozens of CDs, DVDs, a TV, a phone, activities etc.. he will surely chose the computer. Rotten mentality? absolutely. Good for the wallet? yes indeed!
Even for the older like me, now that the gas price increased over the last 2 years, I don’t have as much money as I would want to buy cultural products. In 2003, with 20$ into the gas tank was enough for a week. Now, with 20$, I barely manage to drive to work for 3 days…
At the end, we need to cut somewhere.
On April 30th, 2007 at 2:46 am
[iskra] said:
you said some important things….”I witness the fact that people are singing along to nearly ever song my bands play […].One at this point would argue that file-sharing seems to be helping the bands[…].”
thats the point! its not helping the labels, but its helping the bands! the music gets spreaded if its good! you say you have to pay for the ads…well sharing the music is maybe the best ad you can do! and its completly for free! if i find a band i really like, i want to have an orignial recording.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 am
Bill Wilson said:
“Most majors screw their artists, screw the fans, and charge $$$. We’ve been brought up in a generation where the term ‘record label’ is a dirty word. Where the band gets nothing and the label everything.”
I’m not a fan of the majors, I think their bloated bureaucracy sucks and a significant portion of their employees are passionless drones. However, the fact that artists get NOTHING out of a label is a baseless argument by someone looking to justify stealing. What artists get from signing on the dotted line with a major is the CHANCE to grab at the brass ring, not the promise of stardom. Sales of records are speculative. Once you TAKE MONEY from someone, and sign your deal.. you’ve supposedly done your due dillegence and know what you’re in for. And if you don’t , you’re stupid because it’s not like nobody else has told their sad story. It’s the same cognitive dissonance that keeps people smoking although it’s bad for them… some self imposed delusion that they’re somehow different than everyone else. Anyone who is a rockstar is either placed there by powerbrokers or simply lucky.
On May 5th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Yeah, What They Said 5/06: tunequest: music, notes, ephemera, etcetera said:
[…] Debunking the Myths of Peer to Peer in Regards to CD sales From the horse’s mouth, the effect of file-sharing, peer to peer, downloading, and copying on a small indie label unaffiliated with any of the majors. […]
On December 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Dale said:
I am glad to hear some truth about P2P file sharing and it’s effect on independents and band-owned labels. I have never had a problem with people sharing a few copies of my band’s records with friends. But, when someone uploads it to a website where it sits 24-7 for anyone to come and get it and this is done by dozens of others it really totally kills ANY sales that a small-time band could possibly get. I don’t care if the majors are hurt a little, but I care a lot about independents and band-owned labels being completely run out of business.
Especially when these small labels have never been guilty of over charging for product and have labored under the tyranny of
major label domination for years. I blogged about this very subject at:
http://streamofcrust.blogspot.com/
Here is an excellent discourse of the issue and what reps from several indy labels have said about it: http://donnymiller.com/blog/?p=5
On November 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Ashley Barrett said:
s0o5xz6cz65nnn9f