Slashdot Mirror
Moby Says Techie Fans = Fewer Sales
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?"
the super rich.
Well, if you like the music that a band puts out, you should buy the CD to support the band in the first place.
"Techie fans" have been able to pirate songs for years now. Perhaps Moby's latest album just isn't that good? I haven't heard it, but that seems like the most likely explanation.
I didn't buy it because the reviews sucked, and because it didn't seem like enough of a departure from 'Play' to be interesting.
On the other hand, I don't steal music.
To me, the "Pearl Jam Effect" means that they haven't released a good album since Vs. Sure, there have been a few decent tracks here and there, but none of the albums since Vs. has been worth a hill of beans... Is this what Moby means?
Artists like Moby are precisely the sort of artists who stand to benefit the most through distribution of their music through p2p networks. The reason is simple: Moby's music would be considered by many "alternative" and consequently it doesn't get a lot (any) air play. So where am I supposed to hear it to know whether I like it enough to buy the album?
If that's the case, then why hasn't this album taken off then? Well, I'd say the recent successes of the RIAA in getting p2p networks shut down has probably helped, but ultimately, maybe the album just isn't as good? Not having heard it, I can't comment on that.. Maybe someone else can. Maybe the marketing of the album sucked? (I haven't heard of it all until now). Either way, I think it's clear that blaiming the p2p networks is based on opinion (And FUD) rather than fact.
I thought Eminem summed it up when he said:
"And Moby, you can get stomped by Obie,
You 36 year old bald headed fag blow me
You don't know me, you're too old
Let go, it's over, nobody listens to techno"
See its easy, NOBODY LISTENS TO TECHNO!
I belive that tech savvy people easyer understand the legal aspect of piracy, EULAs and modern copyright protection. They might not agree with RIAA on means and do share and download songs, but very often they end up buying the album. I belive this is either because they want the real stuff or because they belive that everybody are entitled to their own opinion, even if it means accepting that others can creat destructive EULAs and over protecting their copyrights because they only think about profit in a short term.
The ones who hurt music are those who are less tech savvy, less hackish/geekish. Most youths know how to operate a computer, burning CD's and sharing files is a piece of cake. What they are not aware of is the impact this has on musicians and record labels. They are just not thinking, what they really do is think like RIAA: "How can I get the most without paying?"
Look a monkey!
> Well, if you like the music that a band puts out, you should buy the CD to support the band in the first place
...)
In the current market yes, if you like the band the best way to show your support seems to be to buy the CD (and merchandise and concerts and
Ideally though the artists would be a little bit more technologically savvey they would allow fans to fund their music without there being so many middlemen skimming off profits.
And Moby in particular will probably make more money selling his songs to advertisers than he will on record sales (and the advertisers often end up adversting Moby as much as their product).
The music industry is on crack, and Moby has fallen for their rhetoric. I think my subject sums it up neatly. Will they ever learn?
--
wher eis the spllchkr when u need it...
I feel that having a large following of tech fans is a plus, because a larger amount of them understand things such as value and capitalism. Reading slashdot user comments shows people always telling us to support artists that we like by buying their stuff. Look at Mandrakesoft. They say they're out of money, put up a donate link, and bam, cash flow. Why? Because their product has more value than $0 to many people who use it.
It is the non tech people who hurt sales; they see $0 vs $19 and don't consider things like quality, bandwidth, time, and value as measures of money. A lot of my non-tech friends used to buy CDs, but now don't understand why the money needs to change hands.
It is those people who will download with no intention of buying, not tech savy economically conscious slashdotters. (In most cases at least)
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
"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.
Moby is only saying something that's been repeated a million times elsewhere. He's an intelligent enough to address the issue without berating his fans Metallica-style.
I would say this is hard to refute. Indie, geeky, techno, and others in the technophile musical demographic are being copied left and right. Oh course there are huge advanteges to this in terms of exposure, concert attendence, etc. For instance, even before the broadband P2P revolution, back in 1998/1999 Stereolab managed to sell out two good sized Chicago venues. This is a band that never got any local radioplay and never came close to the top40 or top100 record sales.
Shameless copying is a tradition that started with music lovers and has simply been made easier through technology. Moby questions how the industry measures success. That's a very important issue. The genie is out of the bottle, but the industry measures success through outdated methods.
In another way this isn't exactly new. A lot of talented artists who take risks instead of sticking to pop formulas tend to be undervalued and underexposed. At least P2P can fix the latter.
Before tech savvy people had the computer we had the radio and tape cassette.
People could ALWAYS pirate music, yet michael jacksons triller sold 20 million copies, funny how no one decided to pirate him even though it was all over the radio all the damn time and everyone had it and could copy the cassette.
I know, I had one of those dual cassette players, you stick both cassettes into it, play one and record on the other. Funny how when everyone was using cassettes the RIAA didnt complain about sales but now, that they are losing their monopoly, piracy is suddenly a big problem?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
He thinks that sales of his and other band's CDs are lower because people are d/ling mp3s instead of buying them. He thinks the recording industry doesn't properly account for that when it "decides" how popular an artist is. (They're probably too busy suing people to worry about it.)
I'm not sure why 20 bazillion posts need to be made about how you think the CD sucks. I think that ground has been covered just a tad.
And another quore from Moby about this issue:
"What do you think about Napster and CD burning?
Moby: On one hand the thought of people in the music business losing their jobs makes me sad. I have a lot of friends who work in record stores and at record companies, and I know that they're nervous these days. So I hope that some way is found to protect their jobs. But I do hope that as the music business becomes less profitable that the people who are in music only to make money will be forced out. People who love money more than music shouldn't be involved in the music business, in my opinion."
From a random interview i found.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
People who copy albums have neither the incentive or the bandwidth to compete. It really is a competition. A business' product vs. their product for free. Fine. Let's look at a comparison. (Businesses here mainly includes independent artists):
1) Businesses can afford readily available and reliable bandwidth in large amounts.
The free copies probably can't.
2) Businesses can advertise.
The free copies probably won't.
3) Businesses have an incentive to provide a higher quality product at a better price due to increased competition.
The free copies probably won't put in the required time, and certainly not for free.
4) Businesses can make new products.
Copies, by definition, are never new.
5) Businesses have an incentive to make it very convenient to find and purchase their products.
Free copies are usually very difficult *and time consuming* to find. That's not free. Time is money.
Add to this the fact that most people are honest, and the whole "piracy" argument becomes quite flimsy indeed.
I'm not in support of draconian *AA legislation and irrational copyright controls, but I *am* in support of artists earning a fair living from their work. Technology should be used to encourage that.
"Illegal" copying will never go away. It's no different than shoplifting or people writing bad checks. It's going to happen. That should not be an excuse to treat everyone else poorly (Best Buy, are you listening?). If you treat people like thieves, that's exactly how they will behave, mainly because of the implied insult, not because they weren't willing to buy your precious "content."
Note to the music and video publishers: Put your stuff on line sooner, and these problems will be reduced.
Another $0.02
Weezer have far more 'geek' fans than wannabe-populist Moby, or even the fine Pearl Jam (whose audience was mostly psuedo-intellectual depressed teens).
Weezer have continued to have great success, and Maladroit has sold more than the green album. All this despite a -very- easy to obtain high quality rip coming out weeks in advance! Weezer aren't anti file-sharing either, so it's all good.
Moby can go stick his head in a grinder. I actually like Moby and what he stands for, I even like his music.. but really, his music is pretty damn dull. It's no surprise people wouldn't buy it.
mogorific carpentry experiments
The Pearl Jam effect is not what Moby says it is.
Moby says Weezer is also suffering from the "Pearl Jam Effect." "Weezer sold a lot of records in their first week of release, but since then their sales have dropped off considerably, even thought they have radio hits..."
What happened to Weezer (and Moby) is that the audience changed. They have a group of core fans who went out and bought their album as soon as it came out. But their sound, though solid, no longer bit the general audience as hard. Pearl Jam is a perfect example of this. It's not that their music is overshared, it's that no one in the larger audience cares, they've moved on to something else (not neccesarily something better).
I can't believe this FUD came from Moby. I can't believe he had this thought and then sat down at his computer and then typed his thought out and then sent his thought to his website. File sharing isn't hurting the record industry any more than MTV and the radio have.
Moby claims that he has "very technically savvy fans" and that everyone else who manages to sell records does not. That's such a silly argument, it's hard to believe he said it. Does he have numbers to show that his audience consists solely of super-intelligent computer geeks? Or that only computer geeks participate in file sharing or CD burning?
Poor Moby, you're album is at 35. Last week it was at 15! Sorry, buddy, I've heard it and this album isn't "Play", it's just another silly Moby album. The people that are dedicated Moby fans are going to run out and buy it immediately. Word of mouth is going to say, "It's not all that good, unless you're a big Moby fan", and then sales drop as people who aren't as into you (e.g. me) stay home in droves.
Saying that his fans are more savy is rediculous. Stealing music isn't technically difficult. You need only a computer and internet access (can you say "College Student"?). One person with ripping software gets the MP3s on the web and the rest is just the personal choice effect. I would bet that the most shared music is also the most sold music. Moby's music isn't getting shared more than Eminem's. That's the bottom line.
Sweat
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
i liked older moby. i own those CDs. I listened to some of his newer stuff, then didn't really like it and got rid of the cds. The reason his current cd isn't selling well is because it's not very good, not because it's being pirated. That's a lame, scapegoating approach, moby. Go back to your old electronica stylings, and maybe your sales will pick up again.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
So hmmm, Wilco breaks into the billboard chart at number 13 thanks to mp3 trading on the web,
and Moby is "barely floating".
Good! First off, Moby may know a thing or two about making music, but what exactly does he know about Economics, and specifically those that are related to album sales? Ah! He doesn't have any qualifications. Thats fine, I am not a slave to "pieces of paper" that say Harvard or Yale, what is his evidence?
1) he's not doing so hot.
2) Weezer's not doing so hot.
3) Pink is beating the PANTS off them both.
Hmmm, could it be that PINK spend mad money on songwriter (Specifically the lady from 4 Non Blondes) Linda Perry
Hunh, maybe she's just getting more air play and has better quality songs?
okay, okay, fine. WEll, what about Wilco, who's album has been available for ages on the web, I would think they have a techie fan base?
And didn't wide spread MP3 availability simply help them out?
So let us re-phrase the Pearl Jam Effect- when your new album sucks in comparison to your previous albums and you don't sell because you don't deserve it?
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Moby seems to forget one very important piece of information... Pearl Jam, has for years allowed their fans to bring recording devices into concerts, have often released foreign import albums in this country and have gone out of their way to be an enlightened band. I have all of PJ's albums, some of which I've purchased two or three times. Moby, on the other hand, suffers from little-bald-guy-on-stage-with-a-guitar, "record in my bathroom" laptop-sample-using-techno-rock. To be more accurate, he should have called it the "Moby Effect". If you want to hear any good electronic music, listen to someone like Nine Inch Nails.
My $.02 which is more than I have spent on Moby albums in the last few years...
FLR
no, you're a moron
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
CLUNK scratchscratch I don't scratch think POP vinly quality scratch is quite POP scratch as POP good as scratch CD quality. scratchPOP scratchPOP scratchPOP scratchPOP...
After reading this crap I don't think I will ever listen to or buy any more Moby CD's. I am sorry but his latest work just isn't up to the quality of all his others. If he wants to blame it on his loyal fans, then he can go screw off, cause he has LOST me as a listener.
And you never know. All that repressed homosexuality may well come to the surface.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
While the unemployment rate of the US population in general is a mere 6%, among techies, unemployment plus underemployment is somewhere between 25% and 35%. Techies are not that big a portion of the whole population. With no disposable cash, of course they won't spend where it can be avoided. Of course there will be many who steal music even if well employed, but many others won't.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
First, let me say I'm not a huge Moby fan. I don't dislike the guy, but I remember when he was a basic rave DJ in the San Francisco area.
Funny that he made his money for so long by mixing records of other peoples' stuff together. Somehow I doubt he paid the appropriate ASCAP or BMI fees. So right off, I have a hard time sympathizing with his complaints about piracy.
But beyond that, isn't it notable that artists with a large fanbase in the tech community blame that fanbase whenever sales slip? Metallica was the first; Moby is just the latest.
My theory is this: Acts like Metallica or Moby build up a cult following over years. By nature, that cult following is largely techies and other folks who don't follow the Christina Spears of the month club. People who actually care about music and are willing to follow smaller bands to get what they want.
At some point, some of these bands go to pot (literally, figuratively, or both). Their later work becomes increasingly detached and less and less like the early work, eventually ending up as a mellowed out, regurgitated pablum made up of bits and pieces of all of their early work, mixed with maybe a few mainstream artists whose stolen sounds might help draw in a few more customers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfans. Fans lose interest and buy less.
And then, as the final stage of intellectual and moral decay, these acts engage in a strange form of denial crossed with egotism crossed with paranoia. "The fans must still love us!" they shout. "We're sure they're still listening to this new crap we put out, but for some reason sales are down. It's those goddamned fans! They must be stealing our crappy new stuff, because after years of paying for our old, quality stuff, they've suddenly become a backstabbing pack of thieves! Yeah, that must be it! Those fans of ours sure do suck!"
Anyways, that's my theory. It would just be sad, if it didn't have the dangerous potential of impacting our legal system.
Cheers
-b
>I've told all of my friends not to buy it.
;-).
Same here.
I *do* buy CD's I've heard and know I'll enjoy listening to (end to end, not for some stupid single).
Moby's "Play" was one of those must-buy CD's... it had a nice groove start to end, while "18" has *one* good track.
Now, perhaps "18" will bring Moby some new fans. Or maybe he just wanted to experiment (good for him)... but I just don't like the new album. It's far too melow and slow.
PS -- It's *completely* unfair to label "techies" as CD copy fiends. It seems the last time I checked, the #1 CD on cddb.com was Eminem... that's *hardly* music for the "techie crowd" (I'll resist the opening to label the Eminem crowd
I thought it was the other way around: the public wanted another Ten, but got "Not for You" and the aforementioned politics. When it comes to a platinum album, most fans don't want a radically different sequel. This is a band we're talking about, not Picasso.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Moby didn't attack anyone in his journal entry. He didn't editorialize. He didn't whine or complain, or moan about lost sales. At no point did Moby even say that he minded this supposed effect. He put forth a reasonable theory with some empirical evidence to back it up, for the sake of discussion. Why is everyone attacking him? He's done nothing wrong. He hasn't even suggested that we've done something wrong. Why is everyone on this board acting like a total asshole, instead of reasonably debating the points that he made? I can't help but notice that very few people have mentioned Weezer at all to this point.
Here's Moby's original journal entry that started it all.
it's not going to stop until you wise up, no it's not going to stop. so just give up.
I think it isn't a case of lots of "techo-savvy" fans burning and copying instead of going out to buy the cd. It's a case of people like me who refuse to buy any new music, because I want to buy the MUSIC, not the stupid distribution media. The RIAA wants me to buy the physical media and be stuck with that, so I'll have to buy it again when blue-laser cd's are out, and again when crystal hologram storage comes out, and again when RNA-enhanced neurons come out. Sorry, I have about 400 cd's that mostly collect dust now that their contents exist on a file-server on my LAN. I don't plan to go back to the days of swapping discs every 35 minutes just because some pointy-haired business exec can't give up the old ways.
Let me download a good-quality 256k-bit mp3 or ogg directly from the publisher and I'll happily pay $1 a song. Until then, I have my collection, alternative music through non-RIAA sources, and the radio.
Finally someone has figured out how Britney Spears manages to sell as many CDs as she does.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
Actually, "purchased" might be too strong a word. I think I might have used some GeoCities GeoPlus points that got turned into gift e-certificates to order the CD via Amazon (or similar).
Personally, I believe he's reached "terminal saturation" -- that is to say that's we've all had enough of him. Guy Pierce is suffering from the same thing (actors must hate it when three movies come out at once). Britters is pretty close too. That Pepsi/soccer ad combined with the photo of her smoking has probably pushed her over the edge. Then add the PS2 game...
Thanks for the reminder, slashdot!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
How did this get modded +5 Insightful?
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 feel'n the burn because 18 sucked. Tons of people ran out to buy 18 because Play was great... hence the great initial sales. However, after most people placed 18 in their CD player and realized that 18 was not as good as Play (it was like a bizzaro rehashed version of Play), the word got out, and sales slowed down.
Go to any record store which sells used CDs... you can find a million and one copies of 18 used. Used CD stores are a -great- way to tell if a new album is good or bad. If a lot of people are buying it, and keeping it... it is probably good. Yet, if a lot of people are buying it and selling it back for 4 or 5 bucks, it probably sucks.
I think the numbers speak for themselfs. I'm obviously not the only one that ran out to buy 18 and was let down.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
How many true artists care about where their album stands on the charts. The charts are one of many ways for the artist to feel validated by their hard work and accomplishment. To be honest, I think Moby's just being upfront and "real" about how he feels about all of this and the fact that he's wondering about it can have the positive effect of creating a dialogue amongst music fans about his point.
BTW, if anything, Moby sold out last album with the licensing of "PLay". Note that this album is not as easily bought for commercial use.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
When a CD sells a zillion copies, but not a bazillion copies, that's not a flop. That's more success than just about any of us reading this will ever have.
All the people blasting Moby as being old and over the hill are pretty funny. 36 is not old, except to know-it-all teenagers.
There sure are a lot of people with bottled up angst, wanting to put down this CD in some sort of all-encompassing way. It's just a CD! If you don't like it, don't listen to it!
And then there are the people who say you should copy it because either (a) it sucks, or (b) Moby has an attitude problem. What weird logic! If those cases you think you wouldn't want anything to do with it, but it's the old double standard of "I hate you music industry, but I desperately need what you sell."
Actually I'm just kidding, I still kinda like Moby. I do miss my monkyradio and somafm due to the stupidness of CARP.
Bleh!
Maybe tech-savvy fans buy less stuff because it requires intelligence to become tech-savvy, and a side effect of being intelligent is that you acquire discriminating taste and become selective about purchasing stuff, rather than rushing out like a brainwashed lemming every time you see something shiny to buy.
The average well-trained fanboy who instinctively buys everything that happens to have the right logo that he's been brainwashed to respond to, whether or not it's crap, can't really be considered "intelligent".
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!