Jeremy Ervin is a sophomore journalism major and writes ‘No Sleep Till Muncie’ for The Daily News. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper. Write to Jeremy at jrervin@bsu.edu.
In December of 2011, standup comedian Louis C.K. released his special “Live at Beacon Theatre” for direct sale on his website for $5. The format and distribution method made the files extremely easy to pirate, but people paid anyway. Within 12 days of the release, CK had made more than $1 million. Fellow comic Joe Rogan followed suit in the wake of his success.
In late July, C.G.P. Grey introduced a “voluntary subscription” to help support his free educational videos on YouTube. Using the crowd source funding website subbable.com, he raised his monthly contribution goal in only five hours. Current contributions stand at 191 percent of his requested funds.
Through the use of the Internet artists, writers, musicians and more are able to distribute their content directly to their audience using some pretty atypical business models. While record labels and movie studios struggle to staunch their losses to piracy by suing individuals, shutting down file sharing sites and placing limitations on the use of their content, smaller, more open operations flourish online.
Internet technology allows creators to promote and distribute their own content without the help of an agent or publishing company. The stream-lined nature of this new form of distribution is changing the way people create their content as well.
When you cut out the middleman, the only authority is the voice of the audience. For example, small bands with a following will no longer be forced to make their music more “commercially viable” in order to have it distributed. While a large record company may offer more opportunity and exposure than sites like YouTube, individuals now have the tools they need to promote their own product their own way, nearly for free.
But this new type of distribution is not without its challenges.
The reality is that you can’t maintain a professional creative project without money.
One way to make money is to introduce a paywall. This follows the traditional business model of “pay me or no content.” While places online do this, such as newspapers, this makes content less accessible to the public. One of the biggest advantages of the Internet is that almost anyone can access it almost anywhere pretty much for free and this business model cancels out part of this advantage.
Secondly, there’s advertising. While annoying, advertisements let creators give their stuff away for free. The downside is that the advertisements pay very little, so only popular, well established projects receive much real support from them.
Advertisements also have a nasty habit of changing the style of content without issuing any direct demands. The advertising-based business model wants content in smaller chunks more regularly. The quality of the content doesn’t matter as much as total number of views. This creates incentive for creators to pay more attention to their hit counts and less attention to their audience.
Lastly, there’s direct distribution. The goal of this method is to make the stuff people want as easy to get and use as possible. For some projects that may mean giving it away; for others, selling at a low price with almost no usage restriction.
When you first look at this option, it seems silly. Give away your stuff and hope people don’t steal it? Absurd. However, I think it’s the best option of the three.
It lets the audience see if they like your content before they spend money on it. Yes, they absolutely can enjoy it and not give you a single dime. In some cases, others may be able to pirate the content to the same effect.
However, this way of doing things works. The projects at the beginning of this article are only a few of many examples that if you make something good and let people see it, they will reward you.
It may be kind of sappy, but this gives me a lot of hope for the future and says something very beautiful about human nature. People are building relationships with the people who make the things they enjoy and rewarding them. It would be cheaper and easier to steal and take, and give nothing back. But people give back anyway. They want to see others grow, develop and keep doing what they do.
The audience is happy. The artist is happy. Everyone grows. If that isn’t progress, I don’t know what is.
