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

261–270 of 291 posts

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

#261

Post by vacri »

vidarh wrote: post #156
vacri wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't you rip the physical disk?

The point is he considers receiving and having to rip and/or store the disk as an additional cost on top of the $15. It widens the gap between the $5 download and the $15 disk further because he has more hassle to get the same functionality.

The point is that he's gilding the lily. He doesn't have to store the physical artifact in perpetuity, he can format shift it and make it like his $5 purchase. Sure, it's more work for him, and makes the effective cost more than $5.

But he's not forced to store the physical artifact forever.

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

#262

Post by muhfuhkuh »

citricsquid wrote: post #13

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…

Ever hear of JA Konrath? Neither did I at first. He's, at best, a mid-to-back list writer who had a few novels published back in the late 90s and early 2000s. He started self-publishing his old catalog of books once they were reverted (ie, the publishers saw little/no value in holding the rights, and released the rights back to him). He saw not much in the way of sales, but he pressed on, releasing ebook forms of old and new novels as he published them.

Then, the Kindle.

As of today, every new title he releases goes straight into the Amazon top 100 list. Every single new one. And, he's not alone.

Amanda Hocking, John Locke, Michael Sullivan and hundreds of other new and established writers, some who have zero published work or professional experience have made substantial living self-publishing, mostly in DRM-free epub and mobi formats. None of them are running experiments in digital distribution or DRM that I know of.

It's a proven method: For apps, for ebooks, for video (ie Louis CK for paid video and Ryan Higa, Freddie Wong, or Ray William Johnson for ad-supported video). We read (some with disdain, I might add) when someone publishes an ebook through ejunkie that sells a tens of thousands of copies at US$30 a pop, yet we don't question whether that's some "experiment" or not.

It's the future. We'll all have to embrace it eventually.

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

#263

Post by dlikhten »

A case someone made about Louis C.K. being an asshole. Downloading his content and watching it without paying != stealing. Stealing is a +crime+ punishable by heavy fine/jail time (depending on how violent), watching his stuff and not paying is just not supporting future versions. It's like going to a website and blocking all ads. This is not stealing. It is not supporting, consuming without desire to help the producer succeed.

However, this goes to show: If you are well known, it's more profitable to self-publish.

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

#265

Post by joebadmo »

While this is great for Louis CK, whom I find to be hilarious and wish only the best, it doesn't strike me as a truly generalisable model. I mean, it's basically a restricted version of NPR's 'pledge' model, right? The copies are effectively free, but you can choose to donate some money to the artist. Sure this can work for someone with a lot of name recognition, but that's because he was already discovered.

I think the problem is that Louis CK isn't in the business of distribution, he's in the business of producing comedy. The NPR model does disaggregate the two. You don't pay for the distribution, you pay so that they keep producing content.

I think the Kickstarter model is more generalisable, in that it more directly solicits payment for the production, not the distribution. But it still depends on people wanting what you will produce, which means they have to know who you are already. Which, I think means that people are going to have to produce things for free until there's enough demand for continued production to be able to solicit payment.

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

#266

Post by joechip »

nettdata wrote: post #250
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I worked for one of the big 5/4/3 music companies and they are actually desperate for physical distribution to go away.

Universal Music (the largest music company) sold its CD manufacturing plants a few years ago and all their focus is on digital exploitations. They are looking to the future and that rarely includes people buying CDs in retail stores.

I can't stress how desperate they are to take advantage of the huge number of digital assets that they own. So, start-ups, don't be too afraid of them. If you have a way for them to make money they will be interested in you, just don't assume they are idiots.

You may also want to start thinking about writing software to help them manage the millions of digital assets that they have - its not a simple problem - imagine the digital rights that needing tracking (for every type of exploitation in every territory), the royalties to be paid, the SOX auditing, the contracts, digital workflows, let alone the challenges with taking digital content and pushing it to a huge variety of downstream partners.

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

#267

Post by efsavage »

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…

"It is the presence of success stories that will get more and more people to move this way."

Absolutely. There's a very recent (These guys going out and actually making it happen on their own (even if the initial entrants have a historical advantage) will erode that sense of entitlement, and thus erode the willingness to submit to the industry that artists have.

Eventually, hopefully, musicians will be busting ass, giving away their music to fans early in their career, and getting increased funding/patronage as they go along, just like every other artist has since ancient times, not positioning themselves for a deal and being depressed if there's no A&R people at their big show. The most talented will likely still get rich, the one-hit wonders will go back to their day jobs, and if we're lucky, music will again be created by those who love doing so.

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

#270

Post by brownie »

seanalltogether wrote: post #105
natep wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation is that this was the cost of the cameras, cameramen, and venue (tickets, box office, ushers, sound setup, soundboard, lights, spotlights, advertisements). Basically, all the costs associated with getting people in the seats and the show on film (or whatever the cameras record to)

Yeah maybe. I think the numbers are a bit weird then. He talks about making a profit of 200k, but then admits that ticket sales largely covered production costs, so is his total revenue around 750k with profits closer to 500k? I wonder if HBO or CC paid for the special, whether he would still get 100% of ticket sales.

Most tapings for Comedy Central standup specials are free to encourage a full house, so he would have made a lot less.
Post reply on HN