"Louis CK published without DRM and made $500,000 sales in 4 days, therefore if you publish without DRM you too will break your own sales records"
"Louis CK published without DRM and made $500,000 sales in 4 days, therefore if you publish without DRM you too will break your own sales records"
It boils down to saying, "sure, it worked for Louis CK and Radiohead, and Cory Doctorow and Humble Bundle. It worked for Trent Reznor, OK Go, and pretty much everyone funded by Kickstarter...
But it could never work for you."
This stuff doesn't because it's sprinkled with magic experiment dust. It works because the authors are doing good work, they're able to build a fan base, and they're able to make the case to their fans that the way to keep getting new work is to buy it. There's no reason that won't scale out.
The reason this was succesful for Louis CK is because it (for want of a better phrase) "went viral". People spread the existence of this around because he is being edgy, because he's doing something nobody else has the balls to do. If every artist released their creations independently, DRM free and without any "major label" backing this would have flown straight under the radar and been a resounding "meh" in sales.
This sold because it "went viral". The story of what he was trying to do, the desire to prove people wrong. This had the absolute perfect marketing; better marketing than money can buy, but this isn't a group of buyers with endless supplies of money. If what he did became the standard it would no longer succeed like this did.
How many years ago was it edgy to release an album on the internet? I wasn't on the internet back then so I can't provide any examples, but I'll put money on this happening and back then it being a guaranteed success because the people that wanted to prove that selling online could work bought it. I'm going to try and find one.
That's exactly the point.
I think you are trying to argue that people outside Loius CK's fanbase bought this because of the desire to prove people wrong. You might be correct in part, but that isn't the whole story.
Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have?
There are plenty of popular artists who have done similar things and had massive success. Lil' Wayne exclusively released (free) mix tapes between 2006 and 2008 which built his profile to the point that his next actual album sold more than a million copies in its first week of release, and gave him his first number 1.
Imagine there is a time when releasing music/video or any other form of media is done independently without a label and without DRM. Will people who release stuff in this way be hailed heroes and make sales because of of how they're selling? of course not. That's what is happening here with Louis CK. If the standard for publication and sale of media was what he was doing here we wouldn't even be having this conversation because nobody would be talking about it.
What Lil Wayne did has no relevance to my point.
One option is to cater to your fans, to cultivate a large fan base, and then to offer them a convenient way to support you.
Another option is to cater to the whims of a production company, promote your record with late show appearances, cut into your profits with advertising and middle-man salaries, and then hope that a large faceless audience buys enough DRM-encumbered media to clear your advance.
The point is that it's a better experience all around to have that connection to your fans and to enjoy the fruits of your labor without having to compromise your ideals or give money to a bunch of people who added very little to the creative process. The world is a bit better when there is a direct connection between artists and their fans and when those fans care enough to want their favored artist to make a living and keep being able to focus on the craft.
A lot of music released by major labels fails, too. Movies flop. There are no guarantees.
So, I agree with you that Louis CK's marketing is fantastic. But it's not like only one person can market themselves this way, and there's not just a single audience that will pay for good stuff distributed in a civilized way. I think it's more like a giant overlapping Venn diagram of people.
Kickstarter might be the best place to see how this stuff scales. Everyone on there is doing their own marketing, and a lot of projects are getting funded.
Where are the glowing articles about how much extra money an artist made after adding DRM to their game, video or music? I don't think torrents wreaked the commercial market; I think they wreaked the bootleg industry (http://books.google.com/books?id=hUyMNhH_l-EC&lpg=PA236&...). The people who says otherwise are self-interested and fail to offer the kind of concrete numbers that reluctant experimenter after reluctant experimenter produces from every creative industry.
I will note that this is the only venue I saw this on; not from my friends or Facebook or Twitter or any of the other "viral" channels. It seems to me like it's already to the point where it is normal. It is working because this approach works, just like it always has.
But $5, I can have it in seconds, and forget about it until I want it again? Different story entirely. So I bought it. I don't think I did it because it was an experiment - if every comedian released stuff like this, I feel like I'd regularly spend money on comedy which now, I frankly don't.
But he's not forced to store the physical artifact forever.
You think because you can format shift something everyone else has the time, inclination, hardware and software to do so.
The only argument you have is 'inclination', and frankly that's an argument against anything. There are people who prefer physical disks because they like the physical entity and find digital-only to be too ephemeral (witness the endless screeds against Steam not existing in the future, for example). Their inclination is the opposite of yours.
Your argument style is simply to grossly exaggerate the point. I also find it amusing that you follow a tech startup blog that markets itself to 'hackers', yet consider learning how to rip a disk 'considerable effort'.
It was illegal until 2010, and I haven't owned DVD's since Xmas 2009. So yes, no inclination personally either. But I know that list of people has much better things to do than to learn to do all that stuff.
Now I own no (non-computer) DVDs. Why buy some? Why learn to do anything to them? I don't have any of the media.
I'd not even look at buying the DVD. Just like I don't look at buying the record, or the 8-track, or the floppy disc/betamax combo pack.
You bought this because it's an experiment, you wanted to validate the experiment.
If he had bought it and not watched it, he'd have been validating the experiment. As it is, he's just an anecdotal example of someone on the right hand side of the supply-demand curve. Reality validated the experiment, not manipulative consumers (of course, reality has a well-known liberal bias...)
Personally, I think that in a (utopian) world where media is easily available, not restricted, and is fairly priced (like Louis C.K's video) piracy will still be a major issue. Perhaps it will be reduced but even if content makers manage to compete with the availability of pirated content, they can never compete with the price.
I'm perfectly happy to pay for content I can get reliably and instantly. Today I gave Amazon $10 for the two Christopher Nolan Batman films because a) it was dead simple, and b) I trust Amazon not to fuck me over. (And I guess c) it works on my Linux box, and d) I love his work.)
In fact, I'm even happier with the Louis CK thing because it's just a file. I'm going to buy another copy for my dad for Christmas, something I doubt Amazon will even let me do.
So yes, as far as I'm concerned, yes, everybody should do this. They may not break sales records, but they may not do that the DRM way either.
Video, on the other hand, has had few other tests of the notion that (most/some/enough) people are willing to pay a reasonable price for a good product, even when they don't have to. Instead, our choices are streaming services (to authorized devices only), or physical artifacts (with five layers of encryption). This is the first digital video purchase where I felt like I truly owned the movie I was buying. Give it time for others to try the experiment and see how they fare.
Then, the Kindle.
As of today, every new title he releases goes straight into the Amazon top 100 list. Every single new one. And, he's not alone.
Amanda Hocking, John Locke, Michael Sullivan and hundreds of other new and established writers, some who have zero published work or professional experience have made substantial living self-publishing, mostly in DRM-free epub and mobi formats. None of them are running experiments in digital distribution or DRM that I know of.
It's a proven method: For apps, for ebooks, for video (ie Louis CK for paid video and Ryan Higa, Freddie Wong, or Ray William Johnson for ad-supported video). We read (some with disdain, I might add) when someone publishes an ebook through ejunkie that sells a tens of thousands of copies at US$30 a pop, yet we don't question whether that's some "experiment" or not.
It's the future. We'll all have to embrace it eventually.
If Louis CK would have really just sold the rights to comedy central, HBO etc. He could have 'pocketed' an after tax revenue of maybe $100k, with little post-air revenue.
When everything is said and done I am willing to bet my beard that this 'experiment' will net him at least $2 million more then a traditional contract.
Of course the 'pet project factor' and his timing played in, but seriously; He was NOT first!
Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Smashing etc. have been doing this for years and continue to acknowledge the viability of the self publish model over traditional labels.
TLDR; This is not a fad, this is not a 'one off thing'. If you make something worth paying for, people will pay for it.
The benefit is that he made it easy and cheap. If he went the conventional route I probably wouldn't have watched this special for a year or so until it came out on Netflix (and I've been a big fan for a long time). I don't have cable and it probably would've cost $14.99+ to own from Amazon and maybe $3.99 to rent (for two days). The benefit to what he did was I can buy it now and do what I want with the copy I own.
Actual buyers of the content have issues getting to it, and people who want to pirate easily find it online and download it after some random dude removes the DRM.
I said the same thing about the humble indie bundle, but they seem to be doing really well still!
As for residuals, maybe, but it looks from the post as if he is comparing his (so far) $200k profit to a lump sum payment for the rights, though he's not exactly being explicit about that.
EDIT: Ah correction, he says "this is less than I would have been paid". It's the top comment.