Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Offers Heavy Metal a New Business Model
hessian writes "Despite being extensively pirated worldwide, Iron Maiden have managed to put themselves in the £10-20m for 2012. This means that despite the growing popularity of the band on social media, and the extensive and pervasive torrent downloading of the band's music, books and movies, the band is turning a profit. This is in defiance of the past business model, and the idea that piracy is killing music. In fact, piracy seems to be saving music in Iron Maiden's case. One reason for this may be metal itself. It has a fiercely loyal fanbase and a clear brand and identity. The audience identifies with the genre, which stands in contrast to genericized genres. It doggedly maintains its own identity and shuns outsiders. As a result, fans tend to identify more with their music, and place a higher value on purchasing it."
...Iron Maiden had established a strong reputation and fan base before Internet piracy became a problem.
and better paid and had less time to pirate when they can buy easily on line.
of the record labels. Before records, musicians made money by playing in live concerts. That's what musicians should do today, and "piracy" would cease to exist, along with the vampiristic record companies: live gigs would turn a profit, and free recordings (Youtube, MP3 and others) would be like film trailers, something to draw you to the live concerts.
Famously, the Grateful Dead encouraged people to record their concerts and saw nothing wrong with that, because 1/ every gig was different, and 2/ they considered their concerts to be where the interest, and the money, was.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The audience identifies with the genre, which stands in contrast to genericized genres.
I'm pretty sure that fans of any genre of music think that their genre is special and that all the other genres are homogenous and generic. This is not something special about heavy metal. To paraphrase Tyler Durden, heavy metal is not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
I've been an Iron Maiden fan for a while. I first got into them (and a bunch of other bands) by pirating basically everything they ever made.
I have been trying lately to make up for it, usually by buying merchandise (since many bands don't get anything from CD sales). I hadn't gotten around to Iron Maiden yet, but I'm looking at their store now and their merch prices seem extremely low given how huge of a band they are. Normally big-name bands charge like $50, sometimes even $100 for a simple t-shirt, but they're charging £10 to £15, which should come out to $20-25, not much more expensive than any printed t-shirt. Definitely buying some of them.
I do have to wonder who the hell is buying "The Trooper" golf balls, though.
Another breathless story about how piracy is maybe good because it might somehow act as free advertising, wow this one is just totally different from the last 43, because this time it's heavy metal. I'm finally convinced, let's roll back the clock and turn napster back on.
That's how they make money
I doubt they care if anyone pirates their music since it sells concert tickets in huge soccer and Olympic stadiums
And they probably have enough money to finance their tours themselves instead of relying on loan from record companies and livenation
It's been well understood in the music business for decades that different genres have different business models, and metal's has always been to use album sales as a way to promote concert attendance. It was rockers who first began giving performances in sports stadiums, because the nature of the music is quite amenable to being played over low-fidelity sound systems, especially because the sheer energy of a big crowd all rocking out far more than offsets any loss in audio quality. And even as stadium rock died out, hard rock and heavy metal bands still made the majority of their money by touring... concert tickets and merchandise, especially t-shirts.
So, while I think it's awesome that Maiden is continuing to make good money doing their thing (I'm a fan, though not hardcore), and that the Internet is even helping them execute their old business model with even greater efficiency, by allowing them to track their fan base through bittorrent statistics, it's not a new model at all. And I think there's a good argument to be made that it's a model that won't work as well for other genres, especially pop and other more "casual" genres. Which may not be such a big loss.
Snark aside, I have no doubt that pop stars will continue to be able to rake in big bucks even if the current model of selling copies of music vanishes entirely. Whether they get paid for touring, or for shilling products, or whatever else, if they can achieve widespread fame through their music, then there will be a way for them to make a living. IMO, the Internet makes the first part of that equation -- achieving widespread notoriety -- much easier. I look at some of my favorite YouTube acts, Lindsey Stirling and The Piano Guys, and I think the success they're achieving would have been impossible pre-Internet, and they've done it by essentially giving their music away for free in a model that's partially ad-supported, but mostly just about building notoriety which they can then exploit in other ways (currently, by selling albums, but other models of exploiting fame would work as well).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
They are supported by Satan!
I like Maiden over other heavy metal in large part because Bruce Dickinson's singing is superb and the band is technically excellent in their musicianship. I can understand everything he's saying, and when one strips away the album art, the public controversies, and any of the 'myth' surrounding the group, one still has excellent music.
It's not a bunch of growling into the mic with uncoordinated thrash and a drummer with a double-bass pedal pounding out sixteenth notes for no good reason.
I've purchased three of their older albums in the past couple of years because of the music. The albums could have fallen into the, "it's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black," realm and their music still stands on its own.
As to the nature of fans, there are plenty of follower-types that end up in one scene or another and really are just along for the ride. It happens in scifi-fantasy fandom, in sports, in gaming, in automotive enthusiasm, in the coffee shop scene, in the dance scene, everywhere. In music, many bands or acts realized that their bread and butter was in making music that the parents of teenagers hated , so that the teenagers would reactionarily buy it to spite their parents. That doesn't doesn't actually hold any bearing on how good or bad the music is though.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
People sharing something they like, promoting and advocating it which leads to new sales? Nothing groundbreaking here.
Piracy is a net benefit for society. Piracy leads to an increase in sales. Piracy is unstoppable and inevitable, as it should be.
Tired of people who don't get that, and are only narrowminded and can only be concerned of their potentially lost sales.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
So, bands that have halfway decent music, that produce new material, that go out on tour, and that have a loyal fan-base actually MAKE money long term compared to bands that perform artificial commercialized crap that is shoved down teenagers' throats by the likes of Disney et al, who only make money while the commercial spots are running?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Excellent!
Piracy is good!
Bogus!
the majority of their money touring? Last I heard unless you made it through your first few record deals with your popularity intact and could re-negotiate you weren't making anything on record sales. Heck, at times you were paying the studio to sell your records in the form of loan interest.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We've all seen the pie chart showing just what a tiny fraction of the pie the artist receives for a sold recording owned by a record company. Iron Maiden is losing so little it's unnoticeable. Far better for them to have their fans pirate the recordings they don't own, leaving more available disposable income for spending on things of which the band gets a much better cut, like their merchandise and concert tickets. Basic economics.
And yes, despite the herpaderp sarcasm of the anonymous coward at the bottom of the comments, it really is acting as free advertising, exposing an entirely new generation of potential customers to their music. Cory Doctorow was right: “Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy.” Eric Flint echoed the sentiment when the Baen Free Library was established. Then he proved it with sales numbers.
Holding a gun to people's heads and demanding money does not make you liked. It makes you hated. People prefer to spend money on what they like. Finding what they like is tough, and getting tougher every year as the amount of entertainment material in the world explodes even faster than world population. So yeah, free downloads work. This is only a surprise to the MAFIAA and their persistent shills on Slashdot.
MP3's have helped so many heavy metal bands gain exposure and allow them to tour. Most metalheads have found new bands by talking with friends and then downloading albums. This in turn gives the band enough exposure to allow them to tour. On tour they actually don't make much per concert, most make about 100-200 which would be losing money. However, at these shows they are able to sell album and merchandise. Can anyone think of another genre that people are so willing to advertise for? There are so many people walking around with metal band t-shirts and hoodies, and, like me, all they own are band t-shirts.
In talking to most of these bands, they are happy you hear of them through downloading MP3's. Most of these bands can't do it for a living, they have regular jobs so they just want their music out there. And every once in a while a band gets enough exposure that can do it for a living. But the only way to get that exposure in through the internet. Hell, you ask any metal band how they found their musical influences and how they find new bands, they'll all tell you they downloaded the music.
what a crockpot of gas. You mean there are people out there that identify with a brand (idolization) and want to give value to said brand over other "generics" that don't measure up? And this is found with, wait for it ... heavy metal fans.
I'm just going to hamper a guess and say idolization and acting on that is prevalent in any brand of music, and surely other areas of life.
You know why Iron Maiden has fans (old and new) ? Because they make good music.
Incredible isn't it. Good music sells. Always has, always will.
And that's the way it's supposed to be done. The problem with the big copyright industry is that the big artists are harder to control and especially harder to take advantage of. Once their ridiculously abusive contracts are up and the band or artist has a strong and loyal fan base, the copyright clowns have no further control over anything new these people create. They won't tolerate it. So what have they been doing? They have dumbed down the products and the producers. They have genericized them to the point they lack originality and quality.
Why do we have 20+ year old bands out there as popular with people today as they were when I was a teenager? Quality is the reason, in my opinion. We had it long ago, and we don't have it today.
It has always been clear to the people here that it was never about artists and has always been about the copyright industry at large. Why else would we read so much about people being sued for copyright infringement over works which the plaintiffs have no clear title to? It has always been about this and always will be. Artists -- the good artists -- will always be fine so long as big copyright is unable to screw them over.
this is so important but limiting the conversation to "hardcore" fans of any genre basically wipes out any progress we could make by applying this truth
it's not just metalheads, punks, rap fans, indie rock, EDM....or name the sub-genre...it's **anyone who loves music**
the industry makes a distinction between *active* and *passive* listeners....
*passive* listeners just want some white noise basically...they'll listen to whatever their peers listen to...they may have "opinions" when asked about what they like, but **in action** they really don't care
*active* listeners *know what they like* and *seek it out*....they have opinions based on action rather than social perception...they like what they like not b/c it makes them 'cool' but because they genuinely like the music
active listeners, music lovers of all kinds, and yes fuckin' metalheads....we **all** will **pay for music** from **artists we respect**
EVEN THOUGH IT IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE
this fact of altruism could ruin everthing the RIAA does in one fell swoop if we just all could rally behind the fact that **all music lovers will contribute to artists they love**
Thank you Dave Raggett
Piracy offers Heavy Metal it's old business model back.
Loyal fans pay money for music they enjoy. Who'd have thought?
Just out of curiosity, which three?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
LOL. When I got into them piracy meant ignoring the "home taping is killing music" label on the inner sleeve, where they'd cunningly made the cassette into an skellington.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Number of the Beast, Live After Death, and the Best of the Beast complication album.
I like hearing how a band sounds live in judging how good a band is. I've only seen a handful of live shows, been impressed with some, not so much with others, and sometimes live show albums aren't so good, like AC/DC's from 1992, where they couldn't even get the bell for Hell's Bells timed right. Maiden's was pretty good, Dickinson hit most of the notes that he hits in the studio cuts but it's imperfect enough that it's obvious he's not lip-synching.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Whether £10-20m is net or gross... its still a pretty paltry sum if they're being showcased as an example of "pirating leads to success". Iron Maiden has had years to build their brand and they started before piracy was as prevalent--so they rightfully should be earning royalties and income from earlier investments. Unfortunately this model doesn't work for 99% of the musicians who don't have a large bankroll from earlier times.
Unbelievable the arrogance in calling even the low estimate of 10 million gross a "paltry sum". Louis C.K. gave away quite a bit of his earnings when he charged only $5 for his DVD. I suppose he's just another failure because he chooses not to hoard tens of millions he'll never spend, or sell out and put his face on everything from bubble gum to waffle irons.
I'd also love to see how this model will work for 100% of today's pop artists who think that Autotune and a pirated bass line will also make their careers last 30 years.
Fewer people even want to pirate Metallica any more.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Depends on timescale. Generic bands/singers rarely last for long. Do you know of any still strong going fanbase for Spice Girls or Brittney Spears, to name a few? Pink Floyd, on the other hand...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
So... how come most of the people I saw at the concert last year were youngsters? University student age.
Probably because the concert was at one of the few venues of that scale that still allows under-21 fans to attend. A lot of touring bands end up playing at venues that serve too much alcohol to be considered "restaurants" under the law.
Granted, you couldn't copy a song, because there was no audio recording equipment
You don't need audio recording equipment to copy a musical score. And some scores were even machine-readable, such as those for player pianos.
I tend to be the opposite. I avoid live albums because I don't really care how good the band really is. I only care how good the music is when it gets to me.
whats the deal here?
my point was about how music lovers will always want to compensate **artists**...you get that right?
buying an album new from a chain store is a horrible way to do that...the best thing is to buy straight from the Artist...attending live shows helps...wearing a tshirt...telling friends...all of these count
are you saying you won't do ***any of those things*** for the artist you like?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Counterpoint. Madonna.
Saying that musicians held a gun to people's heads and demanded money is about as ridiculous as saying every single store holds a gun to your head and demands money
I can't live without eating, and I pretty much can't buy food without going in a grocery store that has major label music playing, with a percentage of the price of food going to the record industry as a performance royalty. And say I wanted to write and record my own music. How should I do so without running a risk of being sued for accidental infringement like George Harrison was?
I used to feel that way, but Autotune and the excessive amount of post-production that one sees in most charting music changed my mind. It's one thing to multitrack-record to combine the best takes, it's entirely another to almost synthesize the voice yet still attribute the performance to a singer as opposed to a machine or a sound engineer.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Put themselves in the £10-20m? What does that even mean? Put themselves into the £20M bracket? Put themselves £20M in the black?
I generally feel the same about live albums. But Live after Death is one of the rare exceptions for me. And I'm not exactly an Iron Maiden fan to begin with :)
I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of long-time Iron Maiden fans find it much easier to buy the album than to figure out how to download a torrent.
a bunch of reasons why piracy isn't a problem for Iron Maiden that are rather unique to Iron Maiden.
Just another second banana
. . . I saw this headline and expected to see something about the use of lead and mercury in attacks on commercial shipping.
Madonna ain't "generic" at all. Furthermore, I perceive her as a trendsetter rather than "one size fits all". On top of that, her songs are recognizable years, maybe decades after being released. In case of a generic band, you struggle to remember who the hell was singing that song not one year after it was released.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Or maybe Iron Maiden just happens to produce music that is worth buying, unlike a lot of "new" bands and "artists".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
That right there is pure quality flamebait.
It is magnificent!
Going by the sales of tickets for the "The Return of the Spice Girls" tour I'd say they have a fan-base.
Precisely my feelings, though I realized recently that Autotune isn't the only problem. I was fooling around with the equalizer settings on my phone while listening to my music, and discovered that I can make just about any song sound terrible in exactly the same way if Ijam all of the equalizer bands and pre-amp to the very top.
From what Ican tell online, it's actually an effect the music industry uses deliberately. It was originally a tactic some studios used to grab the attention of people that had a stream or radio playing in the background, but then became pervasive enough that failing to do it meant not having listeners notice the song at all.
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Without solid statistics that undeniably support the claim that the new business model really works the way it is assumed it works it is nothing more than an interesting coincidence or a fantastic superstition.
What your parent is asking, is *what* makes them like how it sounds. This is more complicated than suggesting the active listener is some sort of perfectly independent thinker. Even music fanatics will be swayed by the opinions of friends, even if it only by giving them more opportunity to appreciate an artist ("Fine, I'll give it another spin if you think it's so great"). Humans also like bonding, so we are inclined to value that which our allies value.
Personally, I'm in the odd situation of loving metal yet having no real life friends who like it (some who can appreciate it, but not as a primary genre). Even so, I can still feel myself swayed by online opinion. Some albums that don't grab me, for example, I'll still buy based on their Encylopaedia Metallum reviews, on the assumption that there must be something I'm missing.
While I am not a fan of the overused Autotune sound, your argument is one that I would use to describe why I avoid live albums and prefer studio albums. If the music is good, I don't really care if the musician has the title of sing/guitarist/drummer or sound engineer.
You must not have been paying attention when Madonna hit the scene. She was singing the same generic pop music as every other pop musician at the time. The only reason that you would recognize her music is because she has become a pop icon.
Here's something I challenge you to ponder. A typical pro-piracy comment in Slashdot is that "if I make a copy, no one loses anything". Now, what if some evil megacorp took pieces of some GPL-licensed open source software and embedded them as part of their commercial product without releasing the source code. What if they now said "we just made a copy, no one lost anything". You might answer, that it is still a violation of the license, and that is correct. But it is also so in the case of you downloading a pirated album. You are violating the intended distribution license.
I don't think ol' Rob ever had hair, and he's metal as fuck!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I asked bruce about this when I had an opportunity to meet him. He said his voice wasn't what it used to be and he has to mix up their set list each night and can only do one or two songs that really push his range. I saw them on the on last incarnation of the 7th son tour and he avoided "only the good die young" in order to do "moonchild" but apparently that changes in each town.