There once was a time when the release date of an album was exciting. For our favorite artists we knew when the last album came out and when the next album was due. If you loved the artist you bought it. If you didn't you either bought the single or you listened to the album with your friends and then decided.
As the price of records and then CDs increased year by year, spending 20 bucks for a CD became a purchase you needed to be sure of rather than a no brainer or impulse buy.
Then free became an option.
Then aggregating almost unlimited free music on a PC and then an IPOD became easy.
So here we are in 2008 and the only given in the music industry is that CD sales have and will fall. And fall. And fall.
Reading last weeks billboard, something interesting popped out at me. The song Low Rider by Flo Rida sold 467,000 units in a single week. There were 27 digital singles that sold more than 100k units in that week. The obvious trend continues that people are ready, willing and able to buy singles of songs they like.
So the question arises, why don't artists serialize the release of songs ? Why not create a "season" of release of songs, much like the fall TV season and promise fans that Flo Rida is going to release a new single every week or 2 weeks for the next 10 weeks ?
Sure, its not easy to come up with a great song every 2 weeks. But isnt that exactly the same problem you have with an album ? Maybe thats not the "creative process" for certain artists. That's a problem for them.
What we do know is that music fans will spend 99c and that its easier to ask them for 99c a week than it is to get 9.99 at one time from them for 10 songs.
Serializing the release of music also allows for the marketing arms to be in constant touch with sales and radio outlets. Rather than having to initiate marketing plans and hope to reinvigorate the interest in an artist, it becomes a digital tour that never ends.
If an artist commits to release music on a weekly or bi weekly basis, then consumers can make a commitment knowing they are going to get something new and hopefully exciting for their 99c. If the commitment is strong enough its feasible that artists could sell subscriptions to their serialized releases. My guess is that consumers will feel better about subscribing to an artist and getting a song a week or every 2 than dropping 10 dollars at a time for an album.
In reality thats exactly how I buy my music right now. I dont do it by artist. I go to ITunes and I go through the top 10 lists and listen to samples and thats how I determine what music im going to buy.
If there was an option when I bought a single to subscribe to an RSS feed that would send me a sample of that artists song when they released a single, I would add that RSS feed to my browser. Add a 1 click to buy, and chances are Im going to buy a lot more music.
Is this idea so great Im going to start a music label ? No chance. I wouldnt get in the music industry if you paid me. However, as a customer and a buyer of music , if I knew that my favorite artists were releasing music weekly, i would certainly check by every week or listen to what was in my RSS aggregator to see what new stuff they had for me.
Consumser are buying music 1 track at a time. I think people will pay 99c to get a single rather than steal it. I think people would rather steal a full album rather than pay 10 dollars or more for it.
Labels need to make the effort to get artists to deliver in a manner that realizes these perspectives.
The album is dead
The Album is Dead...
Recent Posts
- The Ala Carting of Video on the Net - Will it lead to disaster ? (5/04/2008)
- Talking Mavs (5/02/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I blogged about an article earlier today proclaiming that the LP is making a comeback.
http://parentaltech.com/2008/01/17/vinyl-is-groovy/
Also, this guy did do the serial music thing. A song a week for a year.
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/downloads
He did quite well - well enough to continue making a living via his music.
3. out of all the entertainment industries in America, music seems to be the one thats the most risk adverse in exploring other avenues of distribution. tv shows are adapting, and even movies are adapting (at least the rentals). but i'm pretty sure right now if apple never goes out on a limb and come up with the itunes store, everyone is either pirating or buying $15 cd's.
but i dont think this is really the problem with the music industry. i think the problem with the music industry is that the music thats largely advertised is just not very good and there's currently no new artist that can be much more than a one hit wonder. and for rap/hip hop... you dont even need to be a good artist, you just need a good producer to make you sound good.
sorry i'm off topic.
Posted at 10:30PM on Jan 17th 2008 by patsun
4. lol
"Is this idea so great Im going to start a music label ? No chance. I wouldnt get in the music industry if you paid me. "
My thoughts exactly.
Posted at 10:37PM on Jan 17th 2008 by dan
5. That idea works well for your approach to music where adding hit songs to one's collection is like adding pearls to a necklace. Some people, I would include myself in this, feel that the album is greater than the sum of its parts. A song is a song, but an album is a work. That mix of stuff that constitutes an entire album feels like something. It's a creative statement. A song by itself can evoke a mood or a place or a time, but it's just a slice.
Your idea, Mr. Cuban, is intriguing, but it depends on the artist and the person buying the music. Some artists are more about the hit single, and the album is a bit of an afterthought. But for people less motivated by a hit single, they may be more motivated to own an artifact -- a creative work in its entirety. A previous commenter mentioned vinyl records and according to an article in this week's Time Magazine, vinyl sales rose 15% to just shy of a million records last year. The numbers aren't huge, but that definitely shows there are people who want to own an artifact complete with cover art, liner notes, etc.
Posted at 10:39PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Daniel Stout
6. I *think* that the major labels realize selling CD's is dying a death. They are trying to slow that death by launching silly lawsuits against those dreadful people (read Customers) who download the music for free. This gives them a chance to develop other income streams, or exploit existing income streams.
Been to a concert lately? $50 t-shirts, $150 for decent seats.. both good examples of exploiting existing income streams.
New income streams like itunes, imeem.com, pandora.com are getting more and more popular all the time.
Posted at 10:59PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Laker
7. I have also noticed that album releases aren't as exciting as they used to be. My thought was that artists should do a live concert about 1 month before the album release and webcast it. Remember how much hype Night Ranger generated when they played Sister Christian on tour previous to releasing the studio version?
Posted at 11:24PM on Jan 17th 2008 by Keith
8. Record companies are dieing just like newspapers and many magazine publishers. It is a slow and possibly long death. It has been going on for a few years now.
The Internet provides power and opportunity to those with the masses on their side. Internet marketing lives forever!
Posted at 12:00AM on Jan 18th 2008 by SEO Consulting - Terry Reeves
9. You make some really good points here. I run a web site that caters to unsigned musicians with news, articles etc... and they are looking for ways to make money on their own knowing full well that the cd is dying. I'd love to post this on my site. Let me know if it is OK.
Thanks!
10. How often do American's need to repeat this prophecy. I spent my youth in Europe where I collected mostly singles. All music aimed at young audiences were available in this form. Americans are slow to react to change. When disco died Americans latched on to Concert Bands and Soundtracks and it took Napster to unbundle the rest.
Posted at 12:42AM on Jan 18th 2008 by John
11. Way before my time many novels were released this very same way. As Dickens knew, he could generate and keep a "buzz" about his writing by releasing the content in installments in magazines. You're looking at that same idea that could be tweaked with a Web 2.0 spin. Instant liner notes from the band after each release. That interaction could lead to a stronger 3rd or 4th installment from the band based on listener feedback. It's a cheap endeavor due to digital distribution and would allow the artists to have a chance to be completely interaction through the recording process without the hokey premise of a Bubble and outside the confines of MySpace. Anyone want to VC for this? I'd pour some creative energy into creating this possibility.
Posted at 1:17AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Nathan Ronchetti
12. It's great to see a viable business model for the future of the music industry. I've had a hard time believing the doomsayers who predict the music industry will just disappear, but the record labels have been staggeringly resistant to change so far. Let's hope they adjust, and fast. Your ideas are a great place to start.
Posted at 1:53AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Terry
15. It seems albums were never a big revenue source for artist. These days artist are generating more money from ringtones, clothing lines, concerts, restaurants, perfumes, partnerships with advertisers, etc. etc. Music will never die. Record companies as they currently exist will.
Posted at 2:55AM on Jan 18th 2008 by darryl
16. call me old-fashioned but I still get excited for album release dates. I still go to Target or Best Buy and buy the cd. I love the cover art, the liner notes, the total package....especially when a cd has cool packaging. I'll be at the store on Tuesday buying Natasha Bedingfield's new cd even.
17. The problem is that it was uneconomical to issue singles once they were able to put multiple tracks on the same vinyl. They still don't understand that the web allows them to do just that. And further more, I think it would make the artists more happy, because they can produce and deliver something of value to their public more quickly. It would also force them to produce better lyrics and better music because they can't hide the iffy stuff between a couple of really good songs.
Posted at 6:02AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Small Business Marketing
18. Paging Doctor Obvious. Doctor Obvious please come to 2008 with the rest of the music world. I had to double check to make sure that this wasn't a re-post from 2002.
Posted at 8:29AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Jay
19. Mark-
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with you on the death of "The Album." I am someone who hasn't bought more than 3 CDs in the last 2 years, but has purchased many albums through Itunes, and admittedly downloaded some without paying. An album is a way for the artist to put a group of songs into one package that reflects the theme they are expressing. I love getting an album and listening to it from start to finish, and feel it truly is more than the sum of it's parts. I dread the day when artists release songs one at a time, and would prefer it if they didn't even release the single before the album! Maybe we are just two different types of music listeners.
Posted at 9:12AM on Jan 18th 2008 by Chris
20. "Some people, I would include myself in this, feel that the album is greater than the sum of its parts. A song is a song, but an album is a work. That mix of stuff that constitutes an entire album feels like something. It's a creative statement. A song by itself can evoke a mood or a place or a time, but it's just a slice"
I concur with you Daniel -i prefer a body of work from an artist that i have an ongoing historical relationship with, often as a result of seeing them perform live.
Album's will always have a place in the music world; a place which,Mark, i think you will find is very different to the music industry.
People who love music love the music world; people who love
songs love the music industry.
There is a vast difference between the two.
Posted at 9:33AM on Jan 18th 2008 by marts
1. Super idea.
Have you discovered Pandora.com? I love it. I have listened to more music and different genres than ever before.
The cool part is the artists get paid when you listen.
You choose the genre and sub genre, then like Amazon, it will make recommendations based on what you like.
Internet radio at it's best.
It's great for those of use who don't care if we hear the same song more than once, but like a style.
Plus a listener can experiment and perhaps discover new stuff.
Posted at 10:09PM on Jan 17th 2008 by GoingLikeSixty