If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

There’s been a lot of debate about the value of “free” downloads of music, books &c which has had some focus on the element of publicity gained by giving away a product for free - a technique used by bands such as the Arctic Monkeys to generate a fan-base which led to a commercial success.

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) has weighed in on this argument with an interesting analogy about underpants (it’s better than I make it sound), which got a mixed response from Techdirt. I usually like the writing from Techdirt, but they’ve sort of missed the point with the analogy about how an artist should retain an element of control over how and when the product is distributed.

Adams has responded with this post. A key part of this…

I can’t steal a jacket from JC Penney and hope they understand that it’s good publicity, thus causing several people to buy the same jacket. It isn’t my right to make that decision, even if I happen to be correct.

It’s fairly simple to take this analogy and extend it so that JC Penney may want to take the choice to give away their product - most likely to a movie star on Oscar night (movie stars do wear JC Penney clothing, don’t they?) in order to increase the value of it overall, but they individual circumstances will determine whether this is a good move or not. Regardless, the only people who should be in a position to make that decision are JC Penney themselves! It might be a good idea for a line of jackets, but not for shoes. It might work for Penney but not for another clothing outlet. The crux is that, when applied to digital music, some bands may be better releasing some material for free in order to increase the value of the “brand” overall. What worked for the Arctic Monkeys before they were famous may not work the same at this stage in their careers! In fact, we expect marketing & sales to techniques to change in any sector over time.

Interestingly, one of the common comments from the Techdirt team is that organisations commonly fail to recognise which industry they are in (and hence who their competition is). I think, when applied to music (or even Adams himself) that this is true to a degree - not only does Adams compete against other book/cartoon authors, and other things in the “leisure” space, but he also competes against himself - his past work, his future work and his other, current work. This was highlighted in something I’ve seen recently about why musical artists/bands tend to fail as fashions change - one of the reasons is that each successive release has to compete against the entire back catalogue… (if anyone can point me in the right direction, let me know).

Share and Enjoy -