Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

buy.louisck.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#241

Post by interlagos »

dodedo wrote: post #234
interlagos wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also an instructive example of novelty. His initial experiment was reported very widely, and tens or hundreds of thousands lined up to "prove it could work", putting their dollars to demonstrate it. Once the novelty wore off, the viability of the approach disappeared. The opt-in payment ratios started generously, and rapidly approached zero. Little can be learned from CK's experiment because it was novel -- it…

That's an interesting theory but I'm not convinced it has a factual basis. Maybe readers decided that King's book just sucked and were waiting for it to improve? Neither you nor I can draw a meaningful conclusion on that point. What can be demonstrated, empirically, is that money can be made without imposing draconian controls.

Empirically what has been shown is that if you do an IAMA on Reddit leading up to the release of your "experiment", a lot of people will play along. It does not carry over to any other release, and says absolutely nothing about DRM or atypical release plans.

Lots of people sell videos online without the middle man. Most see no sales.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#242

Post by lookhard »

Goronmon wrote: post #198
eli wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt there are examples of people who built a fanbase online from nothing. But I'm sure it helps a lot if you happen to write songs that appeal to nerds and then get featured on slashdot as a sort of novelty act. I don't see that working as well if you write earnest alt-folk love songs instead of songs about Mountain Dew. Incidentally, there was a story about Coulton on NPR not long ago [1]. [1] http://www.npr.or…

But I'm sure it helps a lot if you happen to write songs that appeal to nerds and then get featured on slashdot as a sort of novelty act. Isn't that kind of the whole point though? You can't just be a no-name, release some music that is very similar to a large number of artists in a popular genre of music, and then expect to hit it big.

But he worked so hard, don't you get it?

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#244

Post by weaksauce »

masklinn wrote: post #187
weaksauce wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trent is not part of radiohead; Radiohead and Trent(nine inch nails with ghosts) did the same thing but at different times.

> 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.

You are correct, though I meant same as in experimented with direct distribution and alternate pricing schemes.

My comment was mostly just to correct the "Trent Raznor's(sic) Radiohead" part of the op.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#245

Post by wastedbrains »

DaveMebs wrote: post #73
rkudeshi wrote: post #36

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…

I don't think there is any evidence to support the notion that "a lot of people purchased this only to support the experiment." Sure, some folks on a HN thread commented to this effect, but I think that the vast majority of the 111000+ people who bought this probably like Louis CK. I recognize that I don't have any data to support my assertion either, but given the options of "buy this because I like Louis CK" and "b…

I bought to support the experiment, same with rainbows, NIN and others. I do agree that most purchases aren't this way and the long tail should be significant.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#246

Post by _delirium »

jfruh wrote: post #200
onemoreact wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current model does not work for less popular artists, so I have trouble seeing the downside.

The current model doesn't work for most less popular artists. All the artists who came up through the system and are now superstars were less popular once, and the promotional machinery had a big part in making them popular (and rich). This is sort of how I feel about the traditional publishing industry. The way it's worked traditionally is that can't quite tell which authors are going to be big sellers, so you take…

An interesting angle is that the current model actually works quite well for the least popular artists: someone else pays for the cost of recording, usually at least a small advance, and tour, and if the record ends up selling nothing and the tour is a bust, the label eats the expenses. Such people would be quite a bit worse off if they paid for the recording/tour out of pocket and it went nowhere. The people who get screwed are those who do moderately well, where the record company takes most of the profits.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#247

Post by rgoddard »

jonnathanson wrote: post #186
ChuckMcM wrote: post #37

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…

I think the important fact is that this worked. If this did not work even for someone with a sizable reputation and fan base, then the outcome would be bleak for those who do not. Plus as more people follow this path with success, even those who do not can benefit. The studios and other agencies may have to compete with this model, and in the process hopefully improve the current model for those who are still under it.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#248

Post by ianstormtaylor »

rkudeshi wrote: post #36

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…

Just as far as this goes: "Yes, he will continue to earn money from it. But I imagine most of his true fan base will have already purchased it by now, so how many people are there really left to reach?"

Fan bases are always growing/shrinking. That statement is the equivalent of saying that Michael Jackson's "Bad" album probably saturated his fan base in 1987, and he probably didn't make much money off of it in the 24 years since.

I wouldn't underestimate the long tail.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#249

Post by lukeholder »

vidarh wrote: post #161
sixQuarks wrote: post #69

Why did it cost $200,000 to produce and host the video? That seems way too expensive. $32,000 on the web site and hosting? Are you kidding me? Bandwidth shouldn't cost more than $100 per TB. Seems like he got ripped off big time.

Using your bandwidth price, his bandwidth costs alone will have easily exceeded $10k. Assuming $22,000 as a top end estimate for design, development and somewhere to host it sounds quite reasonable to me. If he hasn't chosen a bargain basement designer and developers, it's not uncommon to pay $1k+ per day for an agency. 20-22 man days if we exclude hosting costs, from concept, through proper design, content, developm…

yeah I just don't understand the whining from some people here at HN about the cost of the website.

I suspect they are freelance guys with inadequate skills to charge the proper rate. This website would have taken at least taken $32k to design, build, test, approve, test etc. (test allot)

Of course some hackers could whip it up in a day - but I wouldn't trust the best hacker to have dotted all the i's and crossed the t's. Payment testing, S3 testing etc.

Doing something right is different than just doing it.

Re: Louis C.K. experiment results: over $500,000 in 4 days

#250

Post by nettdata »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #132
steve-howard wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire M.O. of the modern music industry is to shatter our preconceptions of just how short-sighted somebody can possibly be.

This is because the modern music industry honestly believes that it is going to go the way of a dodo. When you think that your sources of revenue are dying, it makes sense to try and extract as much as you can from them on the short term, despite the damage it does to them long term. Of course, this makes the prediction self-reinforcing.

One thing that most people don't realize is that a lot of the major record companies are in fact more manufacturing and distribution companies than anything.

Here in Canada, EMI produces and delivers, via physical distribution, a huge number of CD's and DVD's.

As soon as things "go digital", that goes away.

I think that physical channel, more than anything, is what they've been trying to salvage, by staying away from digital.

Post reply on HN