<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Freeconomics: Radiohead vs. Publishers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/</link>
	<description>Mostly involving links about publishing, technology and design</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:20:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Times Emit: Free (conomics)</title>
		<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-23782</link>
		<dc:creator>Times Emit: Free (conomics)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:06:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-23782</guid>
		<description>[...] However, not all - in fact very few, possibly close to none - of our clients agrees, despite some great anecdotal evidence from the like of Corey Doctorow, Seth Godin and now, as fate would have it, Paolo Coelho. All of these authors have given away their work for free, in its entirety, and agree that the benfits far outweigh the drawbacks. (For more detailed views on this, see this post on Freeconomics in Publishing in the light of Radiohead) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] However, not all - in fact very few, possibly close to none - of our clients agrees, despite some great anecdotal evidence from the like of Corey Doctorow, Seth Godin and now, as fate would have it, Paolo Coelho. All of these authors have given away their work for free, in its entirety, and agree that the benfits far outweigh the drawbacks. (For more detailed views on this, see this post on Freeconomics in Publishing in the light of Radiohead) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jp kaneshida</title>
		<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-18647</link>
		<dc:creator>jp kaneshida</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-18647</guid>
		<description>With all of the bluster about the way "new media" is changing the info landscape, the real challenges to the old guard seem to be - surprise surprise - in music. Witness Radiohead's latest distribution play. Go ahead - Google it - there's tons of stuff, from major mass media to pundits like Gerd Leonhard or Chris Anderson.

As someone who exists on the margins of this, pontificating till I was sick of it to so-called indie filmmakers, it's all quite amusing. Many of the principles remain the same between music and film and indeed with any artistic medium on the indie level.

But music has a different dimension than most others, and that's concerts. For musicians, this is where the money is. This is why the Stones, who by now are probably mainlining Geritol, are still touring and indeed in their recently completed world tour set a new gross record of over half a billion. That's a ton of Geritol.

So while all of the talk about the "innovation" of Radiohead's distrib strategy is bringing this discussion to more public light, they key thing to get is that recorded music (herein, "records" or, "a record") in the new age of new media is, in the purest marketing sense, collateral. Think of it this way: If a company takes out an ad for its latest widget, its sales expectation on the ad is based upon market research, and the price for the ad is a marketing cost. The difference is split between the two models, stone age and new media. What the mass media congloms of the stone age fail to understand is the stone age media's aside but a new media bedrock: the model of records = marketing cost in the age of new media; they are stuck in the stone age where, first and foremost, records were a revenue generator, instead of a cost center, ie: marketing cost.

In its most basic light, the stone age media's failure is in their out-moded, out-entrepreneured thinking, their perspective, the way they look at, perceive and understand the world. It's the Peter Principle all over again. (from the citation: This is "The Generalized Peter Principle." It was observed by Dr. William R. Corcoran in his work on Corrective Action Programs at nuclear power plants. He observed it applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and administrative devices such as the "Safety Evaluations" used for managing change. There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans. [emphasis mine])

And not to cast aspersions, but new media has its long list of wacko tries - witness the dot-com boom, but that's not un-expected. However, when a would-be king such as Yahoo goes and hires an old stone age patriarch like Terry Semel, (from the largest stone-age conglom on earth! No doubt the Yahoo-ers thought that was a great selling point, but in reality, their thinking as well was stone-age) it more than raised eyebrows with me. (Although I have no eyebrows to brag of) My expectation at that point was for Semel to not get it, and sure enough, in a re-tread of John Sculley at Apple, (Yes, even the mythic Steve Jobs had to re-tool his thinking. Remember his now legendary pitch to Sculley at the time? You want to sell sugar water or change the world?) Yahoo has "failed" spectacularly. I say this in light of the fact that Yahoo could have been the kings - they were positioned to be so, but then their lack of innovation killed their chances, and in a confluence of now history, Google out-entrepreneured them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all of the bluster about the way &#8220;new media&#8221; is changing the info landscape, the real challenges to the old guard seem to be - surprise surprise - in music. Witness Radiohead&#8217;s latest distribution play. Go ahead - Google it - there&#8217;s tons of stuff, from major mass media to pundits like Gerd Leonhard or Chris Anderson.</p>
<p>As someone who exists on the margins of this, pontificating till I was sick of it to so-called indie filmmakers, it&#8217;s all quite amusing. Many of the principles remain the same between music and film and indeed with any artistic medium on the indie level.</p>
<p>But music has a different dimension than most others, and that&#8217;s concerts. For musicians, this is where the money is. This is why the Stones, who by now are probably mainlining Geritol, are still touring and indeed in their recently completed world tour set a new gross record of over half a billion. That&#8217;s a ton of Geritol.</p>
<p>So while all of the talk about the &#8220;innovation&#8221; of Radiohead&#8217;s distrib strategy is bringing this discussion to more public light, they key thing to get is that recorded music (herein, &#8220;records&#8221; or, &#8220;a record&#8221;) in the new age of new media is, in the purest marketing sense, collateral. Think of it this way: If a company takes out an ad for its latest widget, its sales expectation on the ad is based upon market research, and the price for the ad is a marketing cost. The difference is split between the two models, stone age and new media. What the mass media congloms of the stone age fail to understand is the stone age media&#8217;s aside but a new media bedrock: the model of records = marketing cost in the age of new media; they are stuck in the stone age where, first and foremost, records were a revenue generator, instead of a cost center, ie: marketing cost.</p>
<p>In its most basic light, the stone age media&#8217;s failure is in their out-moded, out-entrepreneured thinking, their perspective, the way they look at, perceive and understand the world. It&#8217;s the Peter Principle all over again. (from the citation: This is &#8220;The Generalized Peter Principle.&#8221; It was observed by Dr. William R. Corcoran in his work on Corrective Action Programs at nuclear power plants. He observed it applied to hardware, e.g., vacuum cleaners as aspirators, and administrative devices such as the &#8220;Safety Evaluations&#8221; used for managing change. There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans. [emphasis mine])</p>
<p>And not to cast aspersions, but new media has its long list of wacko tries - witness the dot-com boom, but that&#8217;s not un-expected. However, when a would-be king such as Yahoo goes and hires an old stone age patriarch like Terry Semel, (from the largest stone-age conglom on earth! No doubt the Yahoo-ers thought that was a great selling point, but in reality, their thinking as well was stone-age) it more than raised eyebrows with me. (Although I have no eyebrows to brag of) My expectation at that point was for Semel to not get it, and sure enough, in a re-tread of John Sculley at Apple, (Yes, even the mythic Steve Jobs had to re-tool his thinking. Remember his now legendary pitch to Sculley at the time? You want to sell sugar water or change the world?) Yahoo has &#8220;failed&#8221; spectacularly. I say this in light of the fact that Yahoo could have been the kings - they were positioned to be so, but then their lack of innovation killed their chances, and in a confluence of now history, Google out-entrepreneured them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kingsepp</title>
		<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-16533</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kingsepp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:24:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-16533</guid>
		<description>The Radiohead experiment will work because Radiohead is already popular. Radiohead used EMI for their distribution and marketing. Now that they are famous, they don't need them.

Plus, Radiohead makes more from touring, concerts, and T-shirt sales than they do from album sales. Even if the new Radiohead album is sold for only $1 each, Radiohead will make money.

This entire experiment therefore relies on (1) an artist that doesn't need distribution or marketing help and (2) an artist (like Seth Godin) who can make money from sources other than a printed book, like speaking engagements.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Radiohead experiment will work because Radiohead is already popular. Radiohead used EMI for their distribution and marketing. Now that they are famous, they don&#8217;t need them.</p>
<p>Plus, Radiohead makes more from touring, concerts, and T-shirt sales than they do from album sales. Even if the new Radiohead album is sold for only $1 each, Radiohead will make money.</p>
<p>This entire experiment therefore relies on (1) an artist that doesn&#8217;t need distribution or marketing help and (2) an artist (like Seth Godin) who can make money from sources other than a printed book, like speaking engagements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bowerbird</title>
		<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-16060</link>
		<dc:creator>bowerbird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-16060</guid>
		<description>who cares what publishers do?

they will become irrelevant...

-bowerbird</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>who cares what publishers do?</p>
<p>they will become irrelevant&#8230;</p>
<p>-bowerbird</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: links for 2007-10-10 &#171; Zero influence</title>
		<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-15913</link>
		<dc:creator>links for 2007-10-10 &#171; Zero influence</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-15913</guid>
		<description>[...] Times Emit: Freeconomics: Radiohead vs. Publishers So, for now, making content free is a big splash, short-term gain, with the longer-term outcome dubious. (tags: music publishing radiohead)       Posted by zeroinfluencer Filed in del.icio.us links [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Times Emit: Freeconomics: Radiohead vs. Publishers So, for now, making content free is a big splash, short-term gain, with the longer-term outcome dubious. (tags: music publishing radiohead)       Posted by zeroinfluencer Filed in del.icio.us links [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: booktwo.org Notebook &#187; Stop Press for October 5th through October 9th</title>
		<link>http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-15911</link>
		<dc:creator>booktwo.org Notebook &#187; Stop Press for October 5th through October 9th</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2007/10/09/freeconomics-radiohead-vs-publishers/#comment-15911</guid>
		<description>[...] Freeconomics: Radiohead vs. Publishers - My colleague Peter on free content and publishing vs. the music biz. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Freeconomics: Radiohead vs. Publishers - My colleague Peter on free content and publishing vs. the music biz. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
