Moby Says Techie Fans = Fewer Sales 1249
jalefkowit writes: "Launch is reporting that Moby explains the recent slide in sales for his newest album, "18", by describing what he calls the 'Pearl Jam Effect': bands and artists with more tech-savvy fans sell fewer albums than those with less tech-savvy fans, as the techies will disproportionately get their copies of the album from friends with CD burners or P2P services rather than from record stores. What do you think, are we putting our favorite bands in a bind?"
Read the stupid article, he isn't complaining! (Score:2, Informative)
---- Moby from launch
Re:Excuses, excuses. (Score:2, Informative)
Disagree: Fairtunes.org (Score:2, Informative)
A much better solution is to download mp3s and oggs without guilt, and give money directly to artists via fairtunes.org [fairtunes.org].
Re:Maybe he just sucks? (Score:4, Informative)
"18", the new album, just isn't as good IMHO, and I'm sure that's the reason why it's selling less, and not due any music copying going on.
Amusingly, Moby used to be an MP3 advocate, even appearing in an advert for the Apple iPod.
Re:Woe is.. (Score:3, Informative)
BUT, I usually only do this to see what the album is like before i buy it, because MP3's dont really get all of the musical information (because im a techie i know this).
This album really sucks and i knew it before i bought it. That this the reason i didnt buy 18!!
Direct Quote... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Excuses, excuses. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pearl Jam Effect (Score:1, Informative)
/\/\/ from a Pearl Jam perspective \/\/\ (Score:2, Informative)
Album sales for Pearl Jam has been hurt (they only sell 1 or 2 million for each record compared to 4 or 5 million) since they refused to play the game and shake their asses on MTV. The tech savvy PJ fans who tape and trade their music (online and off), spark the interest of nascent PJ fans. The more exposure, the more people have an interest in PJ music.
I disagree with Moby that tech-savvy fans are the reason album sales are down. Napster and the ilk are responsible for album sales decline for those people who are marginal purchasers of the music. Why spend $17 on a CD when you're not sure if you like the music or not? It's a better gamble to spend the time on a P2P network and get it that way.
VOTE NADER 2004
"Pearl Jam Effect:"? (Score:3, Informative)
My $.02 which is more than I have spent on Moby albums in the last few years...
Re:Slashdot laziness (Score:3, Informative)
go to moby.com, look up his journal and read entry 6/16/2002 titled LA- record sales
here it is:
Record Sales
6/16/2002 - LA
difficult sort of update, sort of.
about record sales. and charts. and etc.
i've written about this before, but i thought i'd address it again, especially in light of the fact that i have a new-ish record in stores.
a while ago i wrote about the 'pearl jam effect'. i described the 'pearl jam effect' as being a phenomenon wherein bands who have very technically savvy fans will see their records do poorly in the charts, whereas bands/artists who have less technically savvy fans will see their records do quite well in the charts. this is owing to the fact that bands/artists with technically savvy fans will have a lot of fans who will end up downloading music or burning cd's, whereas less tech-savvy fans will generally end up buying their cd's. looking at the 3 week sales history of weezers new record, for example, has proven to me that this 'pearl jam effect' is strongly influencing the album charts in the states (and elsewhere, although not so much with weezer cos they seem to only sell a lot of records in north america). weezer sold a lot of records in their first week of release, but since then their sales have dropped off considerably. even though they have radio hits. even though they have a very loyal fan-base. even though they've made a record that their fans really like. even though there's good press coverage on the band and their new cd. etc. i would be very interested to know not how many cd's weezer have sold, but how many copies of their record are actually in existence.
i have a feeling that there might be almost twice as many copies of their new record in existence (in the form of mp3's or burned cd's) as have actually been sold.
i'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing. i'm not writing this to voice my opinions. my concern is more for the way that the industry looks at the success of a musician or of a record that sells or doesn't sell. popular artists traditionally sold a lot of records. in the future that might not be the case. in fact even now that might not be the case. pink outsells weezer in the states not so much because she's more popular, but because her fans are more likely to buy, as opposed to burn, her cd's.
i don't mean this as a criticism of pink, i'm just using her as an example. just look at the american top 20 and you'll see what i'm talking about. most of the records in the american top 20 are by bands whose fans are, for the most part, more inclined to buy a cd as opposed to burn or download it.
again, i'm not editorializing. i'm just pointing out a strange phenomenon and wondering at what effect it will have on the future of music. this whole issue of burning and downloading is too big and too complicated for me to really voice my opinion on it (not to mention the fact that having an opinioin on burning and downloading is kind of like having an opinion on the weather. meaning that having an opinion about the weather isn't really going to change anything.)
ok, that's it.
good night.
moby
Re:The real reason (Score:2, Informative)
If you produce an album, that by your previous standards, is trash... dont blame P2P networks.
original post by Moby (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Pearl Jam Effect" (Score:3, Informative)
To me, the parent (and others posting to this article) sounds like FUD who's maybe heard the aforementioned albums a time or two, if at all, with very narrow and simple tastes in music. And FUD (or"xyz sucks"-type flames) should not be modded up to 5 (nor 3 for that matter).
Chris
Speaking of high-school kids, (Score:2, Informative)
There are still people who buy vinyls but aside from DJs nobody really listens to 45s anymore. Why? It's just not as convenient. They warp and scratch easily, you have to f*ck around with a needle, you can't hit next track to skip the song you don't like, you can't make them yourself, and so on. (Purists can keep their diatribe at home on this one -- thanks.)
Now, I just went through a good solid year where I had no disposable income and I piled up a MASSIVE amount of MP3s in that period. I have no intention of buying the accompanying CDs.
Is it legal? No. Is it moral? No. Can I bring myself to give a rat's arse? No!
(Disclaimer: I'm a musician and I'd like to make enough money playing music that I never have to work a boring job again. My apathy scares me.)
And now the interesting bit where I'd like to hear your responses:
Conjecture: People will no longer buy CDs.
Consequence: Music barons go out of business.
Consequence: Marketing budgets plummet.
Consequence: Rock stars cease to exist.
Consequence: Popularity spreads mostly through merit.
Consequence: The top 40 format is dead, and music becomes a much more localized phenomenon. Bands have to play concerts to make money... Recordings become more like teasers... The number of people who want to become musicians will drop as a result. The glamour of the rock star will (to a large extent) dissipate.
Twenty years from now people will look at the music that came prepackaged to sell and wonder what kind of morons we were.
We will sputter and be unable to defend ourselves.
I'd love to hear a counter-theory.
-pvh
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
I used to run the official web site for a major-label band and learned a couple things about the music industry through dealing with the band's management (and occasionally, their label).
First, the majority of bands make practically nothing on album sales. Record labels are only there to fund the recording, production and promotion of an album so that they can own the majority rights to all the songs and hopefully strike it rich with one of them (either through sales or through sellings the rights for advertising and sampling). It's sort of like playing the Powerball lottery thousands and thousands of times - every once in a while you'll get three numbers and a couple bucks back, and on rare occasions you might get five numbers, but if you get them all plus the Powerball with a chart-topper hit, you've made enough money for your label to make all the duds worth the risk. It was surprising to me how little labels really have to do with anything - oftentimes they don't even do their own promotion! Usually they hire promotion companies to do radio, TV and print promotion so they don't have to.
Second, the bands make very little, if anything, at concerts and live performances because of the extreme costs that come from putting on a live show. The venue usually (if not always) requires a significant deposit that isn't returned unless so many tickets are sold (or sold out, if it's a big enough venue or name). The management company has significant costs involved with transporting the performers, their roadies and crew, and their extremely expensive equipment (which is usually rented, save for instruments and some amps) on a daily basis throughout the tour. Also, don't forget the costs involved with housing the band and trying to work with the label to promote the band while they're on tour. Most signed bands go on tour only to pay back the money the labels loaned to them to record their albums and videos in the first place, and that's if they have a successful tour.
So where do bands make their money? Moby has a good point that everyone seems to be missing while they're ripping on his album - future existence of bands will be determined in part by their record sales, and that model may not work any more with the rise of file-sharing software and cd burners. The way bands make the most money usually has very little to do with the labels at all - merchandise! When you buy a $25 extra-large t-shirt at your favorite band's concert, that's money that's more or less funnelled straight to the band (once the cost of the shirts is covered). Short of finding them after the show and shoving a couple dollars in their hands, you can't get more direct than that.
You can also help them out by joining their fan club, although many are operated by management companies. Still, the money generated by the merchandise sold through there largely goes to the bands, not the labels.
What we really need is a band whose songs are only available online to become so popular that radio and maybe even MTV can't ignore them, and they do it all without the help of labels. Of course, this could never happen due to the strangehold the industry has on all forms of promotion, but it's worth dreaming about.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
Fair Use and Physical Media (Score:5, Informative)
1) Fair Use. Sharing is not Fair Use - never has been. Consult a lawyer if you need convincing, or read up on it.
2) You do have rights over the physical media but not the contents. You claim you don't have rights over the media because you are prevented from using the contents as you wish! Why distinguish between media and contents if you don't see a difference.
3) Fair use DOES cover making a personal backup copy. So if your media fails you have still got the music.
Moby is one of the Few CDs That I'll buy (Score:2, Informative)
Boycott Major label CDs.
MOBY (Score:1, Informative)
"And Moby, you can get stomped by Obie
You 36 year old bald headed say blow me
You don't know me, you're too old
Let it go its over, nobody listens to techno!"