You can do everything right and still get shafted. At the end of the day, you can only do your best - the rest is up to the Universe. It's not a guarantee - only a heightened probability.
That's the truth.
But we still can't talk about that in this country. You'd rather blather on about karma and your dedication to the cult of positivism. The Perpetual Salesperson.
These ideas that hard work and perseverance are keys to success are incredibly difficult to dispel. Deeply rooted in assumptions about Karma (who's universal implications are in no way supported by empirical sciences) and an apocalyptic dedication to wealth (and its attendant implications). Ever read a press account of a lottery winner who didn't deserve their treasure?
We can't deal with randomness, so we tell stories to assure ourselves the world is unfolding predictably and events are knowable.
If you're struggling in this business, there must be a perfectly logical reason - so goes the thinking. The laziest assumptions will invoke characteristic traits of salespeople, and your lack of them (read: you're not nice.)
And that's really our central tension as artists right now, isn't it? How can I be genuine - how can I speak truth - when I'm constrained by a set of professional obligations to "lie with a smile?" How else can you explain the prevalence of MLM scams - arrangements who's central tenet is you never talk about being in on a scam (It's not a pyramid - it's geometric growth!)?
I want to tell you that ten thousand hours is enough, but we all know of someone that did it in two.
I want to tell you that your perseverance and dedication and endless nights of invisible work will count for something, but we all know there's a cute kid on YouTube who's going to be far more compelling for reasons you don't want to be honest about.
I want to tell you the cream (you) will rise, but the best I can tell you is it could, under the right circumstances.
I want to tell you the only thing between you and your destiny is you, but the truth is, blaming yourself is the easy way out. It's much harder to deal with randomness.
We are all trying to carve a life out of the dust right now, but we need to step back and realize there's a larger context here - a set of extenuating circumstances that are deep, systemic, and nearly invisible - an economic crash of global proportions, a real unemployment rate in the mid twenty percent, climate-induced political unrest and migrations, growing population of working homeless, etc - and we want someone to care about our music?
You could be doing everything right - and still nobody will come to your shows. It sounds so counter intuitive, I know, but it's real. You can be an abusive spouse or a child molester and sell out arenas.
Here's your big insight: It's not up to you. The Universe plays a huge part, and if it shows up late or not at all, its not your fault.
The best you can do is your best.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The Ad Bubble Has Popped
Just some thinking and brain dumping. This will be thin on supporting data.
Facebook is over. And this has serious implications for musicians trying to get noticed.
Facebook (and you may as well assume Google, too) is supported almost entirely by advertising income.
Ask yourself: What was the last Facebook/Google advert you clicked on much less actually bought something?
I already know the answer: Zero.
This is Facebook's dirtiest secret: For all the immense mining of our most intimate data, Facebook *cannot* place a relevant or meaningful advert in our faces, if we see it at all.
Despite "knowing" almost everything, Facebook knows nothing.
This is not entirely Facebook's fault, as the majority of ad buyers are actually criminal organizations (seeking to sell illegal pharmaceuticals, or using the adverts themselves as a hack method (see: Flash exploits.)) But it is the reality we both inhabit: ads are useless and criminal. This is unsound footing upon which to build the world's premiere social networking site.
The Ad Bubble has popped.
What's Facebook to do? Start charging? Would you pay $49 a year for Facebook? Would you pay *anything* for Facebook?
WHY?
Answer: To manage social capital.
Here's the challenge: Social capital is connected to the scale of the userbase. If FB's users leave (as they already are), there's less opportunity to build/manage social capital (read: people knowing AND giving a shit about you/what you're selling.) Get a job via LinkedIn lately? (Answer: No.)
I don't think there will be "another Facebook." Social capital has been scaled out and it's tangible utility has been realized as near-futile. Cohesive social groups (tribes!) have thousands of options for online services already - they don't need another one. The appeal of Facebook for social capitalists was the huge userbase, but as the number of active users dwindles, there's less capital to go around.
That is a classic bubble pop.
The good news is musicians can stop wasting time on Facebook and start wasting more time practicing. The bad news is people are saturated with requests for their time. This can be a blessing or a curse: it means they only trust their closest friends (blessing) but it takes forever to get credibility (curse.) Can you hold out long enough?
Comments are currently open.
Facebook is over. And this has serious implications for musicians trying to get noticed.
Facebook (and you may as well assume Google, too) is supported almost entirely by advertising income.
Ask yourself: What was the last Facebook/Google advert you clicked on much less actually bought something?
I already know the answer: Zero.
This is Facebook's dirtiest secret: For all the immense mining of our most intimate data, Facebook *cannot* place a relevant or meaningful advert in our faces, if we see it at all.
Despite "knowing" almost everything, Facebook knows nothing.
This is not entirely Facebook's fault, as the majority of ad buyers are actually criminal organizations (seeking to sell illegal pharmaceuticals, or using the adverts themselves as a hack method (see: Flash exploits.)) But it is the reality we both inhabit: ads are useless and criminal. This is unsound footing upon which to build the world's premiere social networking site.
The Ad Bubble has popped.
What's Facebook to do? Start charging? Would you pay $49 a year for Facebook? Would you pay *anything* for Facebook?
WHY?
Answer: To manage social capital.
Here's the challenge: Social capital is connected to the scale of the userbase. If FB's users leave (as they already are), there's less opportunity to build/manage social capital (read: people knowing AND giving a shit about you/what you're selling.) Get a job via LinkedIn lately? (Answer: No.)
I don't think there will be "another Facebook." Social capital has been scaled out and it's tangible utility has been realized as near-futile. Cohesive social groups (tribes!) have thousands of options for online services already - they don't need another one. The appeal of Facebook for social capitalists was the huge userbase, but as the number of active users dwindles, there's less capital to go around.
That is a classic bubble pop.
The good news is musicians can stop wasting time on Facebook and start wasting more time practicing. The bad news is people are saturated with requests for their time. This can be a blessing or a curse: it means they only trust their closest friends (blessing) but it takes forever to get credibility (curse.) Can you hold out long enough?
Comments are currently open.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Dear Bob:
Dear Bob:
Don't quit.
Signed,
- Someone You Saved
PS - You know why you get so much flak? It's because people want validation from you. If they hit you just right you'll swing back and then... THEY'RE A PLAYER, TOO!!
Don't quit.
Signed,
- Someone You Saved
PS - You know why you get so much flak? It's because people want validation from you. If they hit you just right you'll swing back and then... THEY'RE A PLAYER, TOO!!
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Re-Thinking
A few thoughts from recent conversations:
- Google is a biometric inventory company with a "search" frontend and a marketing company backend, but the main "product" is YOU.
- Google cares what you're searching for, but doesn't care about the quality of its search results. There's no penalty for not giving you what you're looking for - quite the opposite: additional queries mean higher resolution biometrics and ad placements. The incentive is to keep asking you to clarify what you're searching for.
- Google is more interested in being an intermediary for commerce. This is why Android always-on location awareness is here to stay. In the future, if you're looking for a local taco stand, Google will give you the option of placing an order (for a fee!) from your phone. It will cue the restaurant to start prep when you're (X) minutes away from pickup.
- This means the search market is wide open again. Look for search to fracture to specific portals/aggregators (we already see this). Examples: Wolfram Alpha for science queries, JSTOR for research, etc. Google has already cast its tombstone re: search for Smart People.
- Google rolled out Plus in a hurry for ONE REASON: Facebook's "Check Ins" *That's* what Google was missing, and they figured a look-alike would get them that data. Instead, people kept right on using FB, and never really started using Plus. (anecdotal from a former Googler: the percentage of FourSquare users who xPost to Plus? .01%. )
- We need a guild for professional bloggers. Some kind of ongoing certification that gives some indication as to how trustworthy an individual's output is. Even a crest that says "Not Completely Full Of Shit" would be a start. Credibility with your own audience is a starter, but people who don't know you need signs they can trust you. Marketing/PR used to solve this problem, but they can't be trusted either. Who can step up to this role?
- Racism has moved from the mostly-visible public square to the mostly invisible biases of institutions. How else do you explain the ongoing incarceration rates of black males in a nation where nobody's a racist?
- Money is divided between the Have's and the Have Nots, but tech is between the Knows and the Know Nots.
- If you have any sense about you right now, you're learning to build robots. You don't have to be Tony Stark on a solo project - just get good at solving a problem or doing one or two things. Like hydraulics. Or motor controllers.
- Unless you're already a developer, starting anew in code is probably not the best choice. I can think of all kinds of reasons to learn the concepts, but IMHO, better to start with something physical (robotics), versus say, game programming. (not a judgement of either endeavor, btw, just analyzing the logistics.)
- Device convergence has reached a plateau. Look for development of connectivity standards. Devices that are most "open" will win. (Example: cell phones with LED projectors. Probably not going to happen widely, instead, a connector standard that opens a 3rd party market of projectors will be the most successful.)
- 3D photography will be commonplace in mobile devices in less than two years. But not video.
- There are audiences everywhere now. TV, YouTube, etc. "The Problem" remains the same: people who would be fans don't know/care about you, and you don't know where/how to find them.
- Globally, the food supply is in dire straits. Global warming, corporate domination of research, etc, are making the production of food dicey. Massive under-education about the complexity of national (US) food supply makes conversations impossible. Same for GM food discussions. Knows vs Know Nots.
- Your average home-gardener has produced a 1-2 days supply of food.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Honesty and Reality Pt.2
We all get our own opinion.
But we don't get our own facts, and if you can't tell the difference...
I empathize with the struggle: the last 12 years in the US have tested everyone's faith in institutions. Read this passage by Jim Kunstler:
And if you're a product of the US public education system (without a college diploma), you are homogeneously unequipped to make any real sense of the world around you. No wonder voodoo mythology persists- its a substitute for meaning.
This is why stupidity like anti-vaxxers and global warming denial takes hold: it's a reflexive "fuck you" to anyone with perceived authority: scientists, mathematicians, physicists, etc. And any institutions that support them.
To be clear, there are no actual controversies or "other sides" to issues such as global warming, evolution, and public vaccination campaigns. Nada. None. Zipola. Doubt is not a substitute for knowledge.
But if you're someone that's still out to pasture on these issues, there's just no reasoning with you anymore, because you have chosen to be defined by your rejection of authority rather than the harder work of having to maintain potentially disparate or competing realities in your life. Or worse, being definitively proven wrong.
So you'll flounder night after night wondering why you can't "find your audience." You'll never bother looking at demographic research, though, because you'd have to learn to establish faith in datasets and applied psychology. You won't apply for public benefits because you think that makes you a slave to the State, or worse, it means you're "one of THOSE people." You know, the ones that need help.
ALL OF US need to change the way we're living. Our music careers, simply stated, are just not big enough problems anymore. A career in music will be the result of tandem efforts: activism, teaching, community participation, and yes, music performance. But here's the trick: you can't play to the audience anymore. There's already enough jesters doing that job - this culture needs to figure out: WHO CAN WE TRUST?
Trust means you have to be right! That means you have to do your homework! Most important: you need a thick skin, because when you're right (a lot), people are gonna think you're an asshole and try to tear you down. You'll be lonely. You'll be pissed. You'll lash out. But then...
...you'll find your flock. You'll win.
To do this, you'll have to be honest (brutally, at times), researched (change your mind when you're wrong), persistent (thick skinned), trust in experience (even when it disagrees with you), brave (when you get noticed, the fire will come).
Remember, we're part of a larger reality. That means we're not entitled to our own.
But we don't get our own facts, and if you can't tell the difference...
I empathize with the struggle: the last 12 years in the US have tested everyone's faith in institutions. Read this passage by Jim Kunstler:
The clowns and villains who run America have accomplished something really epic: they have vanquished meaning. Nobody knows what anything means anymore. Anything goes now. All bets are off. It's not reassuring. It leads to bad things happening like blood in the streets. When nothing means anything anymore, some people will actually strive, make an effort, to reestablish meaning in practical economic and political life, because civilized life is impossible without it. So, in those historic moments when civilization is suspended, people will work like hell to restore meaning. Sometimes though, like Germany in the 1930s, you discover that the suspension of civilization is itself intoxicating, and you ride with that for a while.We don't know who to trust.
And if you're a product of the US public education system (without a college diploma), you are homogeneously unequipped to make any real sense of the world around you. No wonder voodoo mythology persists- its a substitute for meaning.
This is why stupidity like anti-vaxxers and global warming denial takes hold: it's a reflexive "fuck you" to anyone with perceived authority: scientists, mathematicians, physicists, etc. And any institutions that support them.
To be clear, there are no actual controversies or "other sides" to issues such as global warming, evolution, and public vaccination campaigns. Nada. None. Zipola. Doubt is not a substitute for knowledge.
But if you're someone that's still out to pasture on these issues, there's just no reasoning with you anymore, because you have chosen to be defined by your rejection of authority rather than the harder work of having to maintain potentially disparate or competing realities in your life. Or worse, being definitively proven wrong.
So you'll flounder night after night wondering why you can't "find your audience." You'll never bother looking at demographic research, though, because you'd have to learn to establish faith in datasets and applied psychology. You won't apply for public benefits because you think that makes you a slave to the State, or worse, it means you're "one of THOSE people." You know, the ones that need help.
ALL OF US need to change the way we're living. Our music careers, simply stated, are just not big enough problems anymore. A career in music will be the result of tandem efforts: activism, teaching, community participation, and yes, music performance. But here's the trick: you can't play to the audience anymore. There's already enough jesters doing that job - this culture needs to figure out: WHO CAN WE TRUST?
Trust means you have to be right! That means you have to do your homework! Most important: you need a thick skin, because when you're right (a lot), people are gonna think you're an asshole and try to tear you down. You'll be lonely. You'll be pissed. You'll lash out. But then...
...you'll find your flock. You'll win.
To do this, you'll have to be honest (brutally, at times), researched (change your mind when you're wrong), persistent (thick skinned), trust in experience (even when it disagrees with you), brave (when you get noticed, the fire will come).
Remember, we're part of a larger reality. That means we're not entitled to our own.
Farther Forward
Just some quick thoughts this morning.
Broadcast TV is due for a renaissance. There are several things broadcast can deliver that broadband can't: picture/audio quality in realtime to all devices (nothing matches the install base of television.) The problem broadcast has is saturation - it tried to go Long Tail and YouTube cleaned up that entire game.
YouTube *cannot*, however, broadcast in HD, uninterrupted. The net don't really allow for it. Cloud is best for archiving.
So two infrastructures have emerged with clear implications: both are broad and immediate, but TV is one-way. Not a bad characteristic, per se. Properly understood, its still a powerful medium. People still view it as the ultimate validation.
Broadcast requires a massive upfront investment (for an artist) relative to broadband - that's the barrier of entry in a way. Right now it seems you grow up on YouTube, but crossover to broadcast (or live shows) later.
Whats missing is a bridge of small-to-medium venues that are all-ages accessible. This is why house concerts are becoming so popular?
Broadcast TV is due for a renaissance. There are several things broadcast can deliver that broadband can't: picture/audio quality in realtime to all devices (nothing matches the install base of television.) The problem broadcast has is saturation - it tried to go Long Tail and YouTube cleaned up that entire game.
YouTube *cannot*, however, broadcast in HD, uninterrupted. The net don't really allow for it. Cloud is best for archiving.
So two infrastructures have emerged with clear implications: both are broad and immediate, but TV is one-way. Not a bad characteristic, per se. Properly understood, its still a powerful medium. People still view it as the ultimate validation.
Broadcast requires a massive upfront investment (for an artist) relative to broadband - that's the barrier of entry in a way. Right now it seems you grow up on YouTube, but crossover to broadcast (or live shows) later.
Whats missing is a bridge of small-to-medium venues that are all-ages accessible. This is why house concerts are becoming so popular?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Trayvon
I can't stop thinking about Trayvon Martin. Specifically, I can't stop thinking about his little brother. I keep imagining that kid, sitting in front of his XBOX, getting more and more impatient... wondering "Where the F*CK is Trayvon with my Skittles!"
I can't stop thinking about the last five minutes of his life as a younger brother. The last five minutes he knows he still has an older brother. The last five minutes where the biggest problem in his life was whether or not to drink one of Trayvon's Coke's *before* he got home with candy, or after. The last five minutes of his mother's voice with tones of happiness.
The last five minutes where he's just a kid, and not "The Guy Who's Older Brother Was Killed By A Racist." For the rest of his life.
The last five minutes when whatever was on television was important.
The last five minutes of feeling safe in his own world.
The last five minutes of any semblance of trust in public institutions.
I could probably pick any one of a hundred cases a month where somebody kills a young black kid and nobody cares. I can only begin to imagine what it is about this particular one that's got my attention - or anyone else. I'm saddened the Martin family's experience is not really that uncommon.
And maybe that's what bothers me most: that we think this is somehow a unique event. We're rationalizing that because this thing is such a big deal, it must somehow be different. But it isn't. Instead, it is depressingly common.
I have no answers either. In fact, I'm still searching for the right questions.
I can't stop thinking about the last five minutes of his life as a younger brother. The last five minutes he knows he still has an older brother. The last five minutes where the biggest problem in his life was whether or not to drink one of Trayvon's Coke's *before* he got home with candy, or after. The last five minutes of his mother's voice with tones of happiness.
The last five minutes where he's just a kid, and not "The Guy Who's Older Brother Was Killed By A Racist." For the rest of his life.
The last five minutes when whatever was on television was important.
The last five minutes of feeling safe in his own world.
The last five minutes of any semblance of trust in public institutions.
I could probably pick any one of a hundred cases a month where somebody kills a young black kid and nobody cares. I can only begin to imagine what it is about this particular one that's got my attention - or anyone else. I'm saddened the Martin family's experience is not really that uncommon.
And maybe that's what bothers me most: that we think this is somehow a unique event. We're rationalizing that because this thing is such a big deal, it must somehow be different. But it isn't. Instead, it is depressingly common.
I have no answers either. In fact, I'm still searching for the right questions.
ScienceDirect.com - Information Economics and Policy - Digital copying and the supply of sound recordings
ScienceDirect.com - Information Economics and Policy - Digital copying and the supply of sound recordings
Despite a substantial literature on the effects of piracy on demand for recorded music, information on the supply-effects of digital copying is limited. This paper presents empirical evidence that digital copying has not reduced the supply of new, copyrighted sound recordings in Germany. Even with a strong reduction in sales of sound recordings that coincided with the diffusion of digital copying technology, the annual number of new titles released to the market continued to expand. Results indicate that the number of new titles released has not deviated significantly from a long-term upward trend. The paper also presents evidence that the amount of time listening to sound recordings has not fallen over this period, suggesting no strong decline in the quality of new work.If you have a ScienceDirect login, you can read the whole study.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
FutureHit Falls Down
You have to see this exchange at the FutureHitDNA blog.
Credibility is everything.
If you make a claim about making money in this business, you better be able to back it up - the unwashed masses love nothing more than a good takedown - a disrobing of fake emperors.
It may indeed be that Alex Day is The Next Big Thing (my professional opinion: no). But if he's making money as he claims, then it should be absolutely elementary to shut me down by opening up a spreadsheet and showing us how it's done.
The posts author, JayFrank, when prompted to highlight some details, writes:
Credibility is everything.
If you make a claim about making money in this business, you better be able to back it up - the unwashed masses love nothing more than a good takedown - a disrobing of fake emperors.
It may indeed be that Alex Day is The Next Big Thing (my professional opinion: no). But if he's making money as he claims, then it should be absolutely elementary to shut me down by opening up a spreadsheet and showing us how it's done.
The posts author, JayFrank, when prompted to highlight some details, writes:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How does someone who wants to be taken seriously walk away with a non-response such as this??
Why would anyone who takes themselves seriously read/trust this blog when they can't get basic details right?
Because this is all hype.
(PS: Look at the stats on his new video: See that near perf diagonal line? That means it's bullshit - "organic" traffic does not look like that. Logarithmic graphs mean Russian botnets. Sorry, Alex and Jay.)