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."

Comments

Maybe, but...

[jones_supa]

...Iron Maiden had established a strong reputation and fan base before Internet piracy became a problem.

Re:Maybe, but...

[scream at the sky]

So had Metallica...and we all know how that turned out for them.

Re:Maybe, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Metallica drove away a lot of their early fans with the black (and subsequent) album, migrating to a more, dare I say, "fleeting" audience. And I say this as someone who liked the black album.

Iron Maiden always stayed true to their original music. To their detractors, it means "it's always the same thing". Which it is (I hate myself for saying that ;) ). To their fans, it means even you started listening to it in the 80s you can pick up a new album or go to a concert and you know you'll enjoy it.

Another point is Iron Maiden always put on a massive effort in their live shows. You get an awful load of bang for your buck.

The upshot is a very loyal fanbase. Including myself since 1990.

Last thing, Iron Maiden owns their music and always have. Makes a big difference...

Re:Maybe, but...

[dc29A]

I know it's anecdotal evidence, having seen Iron Maiden at least 15+ times live since the late 80s, one thing you notice today that on their live shows there are a huge number of young teenagers. Their shows are not filled with old fans like myself. So there is this new wave of Maiden fans that probably don't even know what it is like to buy a CD. They did establish a strong reputation, sure, but their fans are not only the old ones form the 80s.

Also, unlike other big 80s bands, they don't sue their fans for downloading. They also didn't hop on every possible trend in music, they kept true to their origins. They also didn't became born again christians who refuse to play at festivals because some 'satanic' band plays. They also didn't create drama. When members left or where fired, it wasn't publicized and criticized by other members.

Despite making some of the most memorable heavy metal music, Iron Maiden was always ran as a business, since their early days. And this focus allowed them to go through the download era without issues. They never had major video exposure on MTV (yes, back when there was music on that channel) so music downloading didn't really impact them.

Up the Irons!

Re:Maybe, but...

[dc29A]

Iron Maiden always stayed true to their original music. To their detractors, it means "it's always the same thing". Which it is (I hate myself for saying that ;) ).

I challenge anyone to listen to the first three Maiden albums, then to Somewhere in Time, then to Brave New World, then to Final Frontier and come back with a straight face telling that it's the same. Maiden had always followed a slow but changing path. Ditching the punkish sounds in NOTB to introducing synths in SIT and SSOASS to more orchestration in BNW to a more prog approach in AMOLAD and FF.

Re:Maybe, but...

[MightyMartian]

That's because Metallica are a bunch of whining undertalented primadonas. Metallica, the original Nickelback.

Re:Maybe, but...

[Charliemopps]

Metallica's first album couldn't get into stores. No one wanted to carry metal, no-one ever has. The only reason they got big was because their fans made bootlegs and traded them across the country. This got them gigs, and eventually there was so much buzz about them that stores had to carry them. This is continuing today, but rather than simply be destitute the first few years of your carer you can now start touring, making money from that and merchandize sales. Touring metal bands do VERY well. They are one of the few touring acts that still attracts medium sized audiences. The arena acts today pretty much only hit the major cities, so there's no one left for the "larger than a bar but not an arena" size places. But if they bring in metal bands they can be sure they'll get a crowd. Bluegrass is kind of exploding in the same way, they've taken some notes from the metal guys. You can tour, be on the lower end of the "Famous" scale and make enough money to live on. That's not so bad, and I think if you look at how much money musicians are making now as an entire group compared with before the internet it's probably a lot bigger number... it's just spread out over a lot more musicians. We're returning to how music has always been, and how it should be. Decent musicians making a decent living and fewer and fewer PR created megastars sucking up all the entertainment dollars.

Re:Maybe, but...

[Travelsonic]

Do you ever see any anti-piracy posts that are modded up on Slashdot so they can be read without drilling down?

When the post is actually rational, does not involve assumptions, does not involve being hostile, does not involve taking people's words out of context? Yes. It's not often it is seen, however, because a lot of the posts flame people, take their words out of context, or just try to pass off opinion as fact without any citations... so no shit, they get modded down and responded to w/ hostility more often than not.

Re:Maybe, but...

[turgid]

They really died after Justice for all.

Indeed. That album contained their highest-quality material. I got into Metallica when that was their current album. The subsequent Black Album was an Emperor's New Clothes moment for me. I bought the CD when it came out and sold it about 6 weeks later...

Jason's bass work on that album is magnificent. I was learning bass myself in those days and bought the Cherry Lane ...And Justice for All bass transcription book. I practiced really hard for months and could just about do Blackened, One, the Frayed ends of Sanity and ...And Justice for All. It's a crying shame that Jason's bass is so quiet in the mix.

I'd pay money for another ...And Justice for All CD if it were remixed properly so that Jason's bass could be heard in full.

Jason rules. Mrs Turgid and I and a couple of friends went to see him at the 100 Club in London this summer. I won't pay to see Metallica, even though they've got Rob Trujillo on bass.

When Metallica play live it's always a race between Lars and James to see who can get to the end of the song first and it sucks. Music sounds so much more powerful when it's played in time.

Re:Maybe, but...

[Nyder]

So had Metallica...and we all know how that turned out for them.

Metallica cut their hair.

Then they went on a rampage against napster.

Then the quality of their music started to suck.

But the biggest problem? They cut their hair.

Rockers have long hair. Anything else is just posing.

Re:Maybe, but...

[yourlord]

I'm an 80's metal head. I even played bass in a metal band up until 2009.

The Black album was an abortion, but I could forgive them for it.

3 main things drove me away from them.

First, they essentially released Cliff 'em All and then relegated Cliff to nothing more than a footnote. I went to see them on their black album tour and they played a half hour video before the show of which, I kid you not, 30-45 seconds at the beginning mentioned Cliff. The remaining 29 minutes made a point of excluding him. Even in clips of old shows and behind the scenes footage from those years they purposefully omitted anything that had him in it. To top that off they billed it as a 4 hour show and played maybe 1.5 hours and called it a night.

Second, Load of shit, and Reload of shit.

Third, and what was the final nail in the coffin was the Napster incident. For a band, who were where they were only because of bootlegging, to unleash the lawyers on their fans was the biggest kick in the balls, douche bag move I've ever witnessed from anyone in the genre. I wouldn't have heard or bought their albums, or gone to their shows had it not been for my cousin giving me a dubbed cassette tape of Ride The Lightning.

I vowed then that they would never see another dime from me, and they haven't and never will. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

I still listen to the Cliff era music, but that's the only music they ever put out really worth listening to anyway.

I'm all about Maiden though!

Re:Maybe, but...

[luckymutt]

So had Metallica...and we all know how that turned out for them.

Metallica cut their hair.

Then they went on a rampage against napster.

Then the quality of their music started to suck.

But the biggest problem? They cut their hair.

Rockers have long hair. Anything else is just posing.

Cutting the hair isn't an issue...Bruce Dickinson not only cut his hair, but went on to get his commercial pilot's license to fly a Boeing 757. He flew the plane on the last couple of world tours that Iron Maiden did.

Piracy as people think about it is an invention

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Re:Piracy as people think about it is an invention

[UPi]

Is it just me, or does the word "offer" in the article title sound biased?

"Piracy forces upon heavy metal a new business model" might be closer to the truth. At this point the fact is that the music industry must adjust its practices and find revenues outside the sale of physical media. They can turn to live tours, merchandise or whatever else, but calling this an "offer" is just as much a misnomer as "piracy".

You Are Not Special

[Dialecticus]

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.

Re:You Are Not Special

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that too, but I always assumed that was because Justin Timberlake's fans know how to spell his name.

Re:You Are Not Special

[TubeSteak]

Japan is the perfect example of an entire country utilizing a completely different business model.
First and foremost, "piracy" is deeply embedded into the cultural fabric of the country.
By way of example, in 2012, Japan had 3 albums & 3 singles go platinum and 8 albums & 8 singles go gold.

As a result, the entire music industry revolves around concerts and merchandise.
Albums are a footnote; a marketing tool, not a profit center.

Second, Japan is the perfect example of generic genres.
J-Pop groups are manufactured from start to finish and tightly controlled by corporate handlers.

It's no surprise that Iron Maiden is rolling in dough by focusing on concert tickets and t-shirts,
instead of obsessing about marketing campaigns and album sales.

Re:You Are Not Special

[hey!]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I think anything sounds homogeneous to someone who doesn't listen carefully, e.g., someone who doesn't care for the genre.

When Charlie Parker went out for chicken and waffles after a gig, he used to listen to country music on the juke box. This was Charlie Parker arguably the greatest god in the serious jazz fanatic's pantheon. When the other musicians would complain that country music was corny, Bird would simply say, "Listen."

The problem with the recording industry is that it is not in the business of producing music. It is in the business of producing and exploiting hits. I had this epiphany when struggling with the iTunes Store one day. "Why is the interface so bad? Why do they make me fight my way to what I want to buy?" Then it hit me: the iTunes Store was trying to steer me to what everyone else was buying. It's part of the hit industry.

It's no wonder that kids listen to music on YouTube these days. True, it's *free*, but to me there's an even bigger advantage. It finds me what I want, even if its a bit odd and even (gasp) non-commercial. The other day I was reading an old murder mystery got a hankering to listen to some old English music hall songs. That's practically a major project on iTunes but on YouTube you just pop "British Music Hall Songs" in the search box and Bob's your uncle.

Of course metal bands are doing well...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are supported by Satan!

Wait second

[Dunbal]

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?

Don't all bands make

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Don't all bands make

[swillden]

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.

No. The big pop acts make their money from record sales. Yes, it's true that early in their careers they tend to get a lower royalty rate than later on, but if their early albums are going multi-platinum, they make lots and lots from royalties.

(I should mention my source: I spent a while working for Universal Music Group, building a royalty calculation engine, and in the process talked extensively with several label account reps who'd been around for a long time. I spent lots of time with the guy who managed U2 for most of their career.)

The way the labels work is that for new bands they do give them with a moderately low royalty rate, meaning the band gets a fairly small percentage of each album's wholesale price. But that's not where they stick it to them. Where they stick it to them is in all of the other deductions and fees. Basically, every penny the label spends to promote the band is recorded and -- usually -- dramatically inflated. During the band's recording session, the label puts the band up in a swanky hotel (either owned or partially owned by the label, or with inflated prices and some kickbacks), provides a limo (owned by the label) to whisk them to and from, buys all their drinks and meals (and drugs and hookers), provides the sound studio (owned by the label) and engineers (employed by the label), etc., etc., etc., all at very inflated prices. Plus there's also all of the expenses around promotions, getting airplay, etc., and all of the touring expenses. Oh and typically there's also an advance on the royalties, cash paid to the band up front.

The labels tally up all of that stuff, with interest, and "recoup" it from the royalty payments that the band would otherwise be due. It's not uncommon for the recoupable expenses associated with an album to reach almost to seven figures. Combine that with the low-ish royalty rate and the band has to sell a lot of records, tapes or CDs to pay back what they "owe" before they ever see a dime. Most bands never do, because most bands don't reach the level of sales required.

There are some other tricks as well, such as "breakage". Back in the days when music was sold on shellac records (before nylon), it was common for a high percentage of records to break in transit. Since it was too hard to track what the actual percentage was, the labels just assumed a certain breakage percentage (10% IIRC) and deducted that from the retailer's price, and passed the deduction on to the artist, taking all of it out of the artist's royalties, not sharing the pain. When new technology came along, more durable nylon, and later very durable 8-track and cassette tapes and CDs, labels continued this practice, giving the retailers a free discount on the wholesale price and making the artists eat all of it. When questioned they say "oh, it's just a promotional discount, under the old name". And promotions are charged to the artist.

However, bands that really make it big do sell enough records to recoup, and start making big bucks on royalties. Later they get wealthy enough -- and smart enough -- that they don't take all of the extremely expensive handouts from the record labels. They have money so they don't need advances. They have their own cars and drivers and don't need limos. Maybe they use the label's studio and maybe they don't, but if they do they have lawyers and agents who negotiate more favorable terms. And they buy their own hookers and blow. So recoupment becomes less of an issue. And eventually they may even negotiate better royalty rates, though that's less common than you might think. The really big stars eventually just create their own labels and contract out distribution through existing la

We've all seen the pie chart.

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

**all** music fans not just metalheads

[globaljustin]

fans tend to identify more with their music, and place a higher value on purchasing it

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**