181–190 of 291 posts
Is it me or do I find $32,000 for that website a bit too much?
Devil's advocate: In the post, he himself says he would've earned more by doing a show for HBO/Comedy Central/other (also note that he mentions, but doesn't factor in the cost of his own time in putting this all together). Given that a lot of people purchased this only to support "the experiment" (i.e. they might not buy the next time he or someone else does this), does this really demonstrate the success of selling…
It got first link on front page of reddit BECAUSE he was distributing this way. This won't happen the next times if this method of distribution becomes the norm.
I really hope people don't turn this into a "Louis CK did it, so you should publish without DRM!". I agree with the anti-drm sentiment a lot of people hold, but this experiment only worked because it's "rare". Every time something like this is done people use it as evidence of the viability of the idea (Radiohead's pay what you want comes to mind too) and that really shouldn't be done. The only reason I heard about t…
$32K for a site that does checkout with PayPal!? That sounds nuts to me, even with over-planning for high traffic. FYI I recently posted a RoR app that lets you sell a file with Stripe: https://github.com/2tablespoons/Thylacine
You're thinking from the perspective of "geek who could actually implement this." Try thinking from the perspective of "entertainment personality who doesn't want their personal brand tarnished when their website blows up in their face and is willing to pay for surety of that. "
I'm glad he made some money on it. His mind will be blown when the 'long tail' kicks in (people buying this video 3 years from now, still). He mentions "This [$200,000] is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video." Here is the part where this can go off the rails. So the long tail will hit, peopl…
But a major challenge remains, and it's this: Trent Reznor, Radiohead, and even Louis C.K. were all hugely popular and successful before they employed this model. Can the model work for lesser-known artists attempting to capture an audience?
In theory, sure. If anything, I could see this model's working out quite well for the proverbial little guy. But first, that little guy faces a big challenge: how to get himself noticed. How to turn himself into a Radiohead without the tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars that EMI spent marketing and promoting and touring Radiohead, over 20-odd years, prior to the band's online release of "In Rainbows." How to turn himself into a Louis C.K. without two major HBO series deals, a bevy of TV roles, sponsored tours, and a movie role or two.
In looking at the majorly successful artists in pop culture today, we see that 99.99% of them were "made" by a big company or series of big companies. They were self-made in the sense that they quietly worked in the trenches, perfecting their craft, sometimes for decades, before they hit their big breaks. But big breaks were necessary conditions of becoming superstars. And becoming a superstar seems to be a necessary condition for big success in this model.
[I don't want to get onto too wild of a tangent, and start discussing the philosophical meaning of "success." For some, success might mean simply making a living as an artist. I get that, and I respect that. I'm putting that aside for the moment, however, and focusing on the top of the game.]
I'm glad he made some money on it. His mind will be blown when the 'long tail' kicks in (people buying this video 3 years from now, still). He mentions "This [$200,000] is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video." Here is the part where this can go off the rails. So the long tail will hit, peopl…
Trent is not part of radiohead; Radiohead and Trent(nine inch nails with ghosts) did the same thing but at different times.
Not exactly the same thing: Ghosts I-IV was fixed price(s), provided lossless downloads, under a very permissive CC license and the first quarter was put on torrent sites directly.
Similar yes, same no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also keep in mind it may not have "worked for him". He made $200k less than he would have using the traditional route. Who knows how long it will take to make that additional $200k from this offering (if he ever will) and I'm skeptical about counting "the long tail" because he would have probably had residuals on a traditional DVD as well.
Where does it say he made $200k less? The article says he made $200k profit so far, and that this is less, but it doesn't say how much less. It is also numbers 4 days in. Sales don't stop after 4 days. As for residuals, maybe, but it looks from the post as if he is comparing his (so far) $200k profit to a lump sum payment for the rights, though he's not exactly being explicit about that.
EDIT: Ah correction, he says "this is less than I would have been paid". It's the top comment.
I'm glad he made some money on it. His mind will be blown when the 'long tail' kicks in (people buying this video 3 years from now, still). He mentions "This [$200,000] is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you about $20 for the video." Here is the part where this can go off the rails. So the long tail will hit, peopl…
I'm all for this model. But a major challenge remains, and it's this: Trent Reznor, Radiohead, and even Louis C.K. were all hugely popular and successful before they employed this model. Can the model work for lesser-known artists attempting to capture an audience? In theory, sure. If anything, I could see this model's working out quite well for the proverbial little guy. But first, that little guy faces a big challe…
Is it just me, or is Louie sounding more and more like a part of the hn/reddit crowd? He went from "I don't know what this 'torrent' thing is" (implied: "I'm not a nerd or anything") to being excited about online distribution and avoiding DRM. I've been a fan of his for some time and this seems unlike him. I think it's pretty cool to see someone's geeky side being exposed publicly.
I am also cynical - I suspect it's clever marketing. Targeted.