On Snuggies and Business Models
May 23rd, 2011
On Friday the Planet Money podcast posted an episode about me and my business model, focusing on the question of whether my scene is the future of music business or just a fluke. Alex Blumberg came to JoCo HQ a couple of weeks ago to interview me about how things work for me, how I got here, where the money comes from, etc. He then brought in Jacob Ganz and Frannie Kelley from NPR music blog The Record, to do a little analysis. Their assessment was that while it was obvious this business model worked very well for me, it was probably not something that could be easily replicated. Frannie made an analogy to illustrate her point: I am kind of like a Snuggie. I’m a blanket with sleeves that we didn’t know we all wanted.
A few people were offended on my behalf by this comparison. I’m certain that Frannie’s choice of the Snuggie rather than say, a Mini Cooper or an iPhone, was meant to underline the geeky novelty song aspect of my appeal, to which I say: snarkity snark snark! I confess it stings a little. I’m aware that many people think of me as “merely” a guy who writes novelty songs, which is annoying for a couple of reasons. First, writing novelty songs is actually a real thing that you can do, and many talented people have had fine careers doing it, so let’s not go around denigrating it, shall we? Second, it’s a rather lazy and facile way of labeling me that fails to fully describe what I do.
That said, leaving aside the pejorative nature of the comparison, I think it’s accurate in some respects, in that a Snuggie is a new thing that somebody invented and marketed and sold to enormous success. Do you know who else is a Snuggie? Nirvana, Ben Folds, Madonna, and the Grateful Dead. You have to do something new and unique and valuable in order to get anyone’s attention in this business, in fact that’s sort of the point. Just because I did it with “nerds on the Internet” instead of “teenagers in Seattle” or “hippies at ren faires” or “13-year-old girls on YouTube” is incidental, and beside the point. Similarly, Jacob Ganz says in the podcast that I “won the internet lottery,” which is like saying the Beatles won the British Invasion lottery. It’s accurate but unhelpful, because it fails to draw a meaningful distinction between me and anyone else who has had success in this business. It has always been about winning the lottery, and it has always been about being a Snuggie.
The thing that I think most got in the way of what could have been a much more interesting discussion was some confusion about what a business model is. “Writing a song that gets discovered on Slashdot” is not a business model, any more than “putting sleeves on a blanket” is a business model. It is a thing that happened to me, that part is true, but it’s not really much of a strategy. I make songs that are good and then I sell them (and concert tickets, and Tshirts) to the people who want them – that’s my business model, and it’s patently obvious that it’s replicable because I stole it from every other recording artist in the world.
Here are some things I do differently from some other artists: I own all my music 100%, which means I have complete control over how I sell it (or not). I can give it away, I can bundle it on a USB key or in a zip file, I can allow people to make and post music videos, and I don’t have to deal with lawyers or labels to do any of that. I also get all the profits. During Thing a Week I released every single weekly song that I wrote for free, whether they were good or not, without worrying about whether people would buy them (though I hoped they would). I am extremely public about my creative process, hopes and fears, victories and failures. I communicate directly with fans as often as I can without letting it become my full-time job. I’ve never made a music video. I have extremely low overhead. Most of my sales are digital, which means there are almost no distribution costs. I have never spent any money on marketing and rely completely on blogs, podcasts and social networks to spread the word. I tour solo with an acoustic guitar (used to anyway), and I only play in cities where I have already ascertained there is going to be an audience. I record by myself at home (again, used to!) using equipment that is not very expensive, and that I don’t know how to use very well.
My business model is designed especially for me, by me, and it constantly changes and evolves – I’m now working on an album, with a band and a producer, I’m spending money at a real studio, and I will probably spend money on more traditional marketing and radio promotion before I’m through. Nobody, not even me, should try to do exactly what I’ve done, because there are parts of it that won’t make sense for who you are or what you’re interested in. If you’re a band with a lot of people and equipment, you’re going to need a different touring strategy. If you don’t write nerdy songs, you will have to figure out what your version of Slashdot is. If you are Steely Dan, you will not want to record onto a Mac Mini through an SM58. If you hate writing, please don’t set up a blog. Know only this: to do this you need to work extremely hard, make music that is great, and find people to buy it from you. The end.
So is it replicable? Of course it is! For goodness sake, even the Snuggie is replicable. In fact, the Snuggie itself is a replicant of the Slanket, how’s that for a mindblower? (See also the Cudlee, and the German product Doojo, which has gloves.) I can’t believe I have to point this out, but there are plenty of artists making music and using unique and creative promotional techniques to sell it directly to fans (say it with me, won’t you?): Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Amanda Palmer, Paul and Storm, Marian Call, OK Go, MC Frontalot, MC Lars, the list goes on and on and gets larger every day. We are successful to varying degrees and we have different ways of doing things, some of us came from labels, went to labels, or eschewed labels entirely, but we are all participating in the same basic re-jiggering of the spreadsheet. I obviously don’t know the details of everyone’s business, but I’m guessing that we have this one thing in common: we’ve all decided that it’s fine with us if we reach fewer people as long as we reach them more directly. The revolution in the music industry (which has already happened by the way) is one of efficiency, and it means that success is now possible on a much smaller scale. Nobody has to sell out Madison Square Garden anymore to make a living.
And that is the point. That is what’s inarguably different today because of the internet. We now have an entirely new set of contexts and they come with a whole new set of tools that give us cheap and easy access to all of them – niche has gone mainstream. It is no longer necessary to organize your business or your art around geography, or storage space, or capital, or what’s cool in your town, or any other physical constraint. And this is not to say that anyone can become a moderately successful rockstar just by starting a blog – success is still going to be a rare and miraculous thing, as it has always been. There are just a lot more ways to get there than there used to be, and people are finding new ones every day.
I don’t know why the “funny geeky songs” thing seems to distract people so much from this reality during these discussions, but it does. I’ve had a lot of conversations with industry analysts and insiders, and this kind of hand waving and designation of “fluke” is a sadly familiar phenomenon. And it’s a shame, because before we decide if the internet is “good or bad,” there are some really important questions we should try to answer first. I don’t know the answer to any of these, but I sure am curious to find out. How much money is actually being made in this space that never gets tracked as part of the music industry? What percentage of full time professional artists are making a living, and how does that compare to the old record biz? From an economist’s perspective, is filesharing/piracy hurting artists, or just labels (or is it hurting anyone)? How can the people who used to work at labels continue to have careers bringing valuable services to artists now that the landscape has changed? What are the efficiency breakthroughs that we have yet to discover, who’s going to figure out how to profit from this shakeup? How can we rethink antiquated intellectual property laws in a way that continues to “promote the progress of science and useful arts?” And finally, how can I keep my arms warm without putting on a sweater, which is apparently such a huge burden to so many people?
I honestly don’t fault Frannie and Jacob for having negative opinions about me or different opinions about any of these issues. And I’m not trying to ignite a flame war or tear anybody down. I’m simply amazed and disappointed that none of these questions ever came up in a conversation about the internet and the music business, on a podcast, here in the year 2011. It just feels like a huge missed opportunity, and it makes me sad.
Actually, I take it back, they did address that last one didn’t they?
I should know better than to write this sort of post, because it will inevitably come across as a peevish and whiney response to being called a Snuggie. It probably is that to some extent, and I’m already sorry about it. I am really trying to transcend that though, because I think this stuff is so important. I wouldn’t have authorized Alex to reveal the horribly embarrassing revenue number that I can’t even comfortably mention here if I didn’t think that it would, to some extent, move this conversation past the point where people equate “Code Monkey” with “Hamster Dance” and call it a day. I’m disappointed that it did not. And it’s not about my personal ego. OK, maybe it is a little, but I truly believe that the sooner we all acknowledge the internet is not actually killing art, the sooner we can get back to making things that are awesome.
Now is a better time to be a musician, or a fan of music, than any other time in all of human history. Discuss…
Also, for the record, I have bought all of your music with cash money, even the stuff I downloaded free at first. Some of them have been bought twice, and a few I’ve even bought three or four times. Every time you visit Dallas, I buy two tickets to your show, even if I don’t always have someone to go with. I also donated money once. I’m happy, really pleased that you’re able to make a comfortable living doing what you do, and I feel a little proud that some of my money has gone into that number.
Novelty? Even if you were just the online geek version of Weird Al (which you’re not) it takes a lot of skill and talent to forge a career. Yes anyone can ‘get lucky’. But no one stays lucky without real talent.
Forget ‘em – these people will be sucking up to you by the time you’re inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame.
I was a little surprised by the sentence ‘we’ve all decided that it’s fine with us if we reach fewer people as long as we reach them more directly.’ I was expecting ‘We’ve all decided that it’s fine with us if we reach people without them necessarily paying us, as long as we reach more people.’ Or, to quote Tom Smith:
I want my music on Napster,
Where smaller artists are grown,
You want your bloated profits –
Man, I just wanna be known.
Anyway, as I was pulling my towel around me for warmth this fine Towel Day, it occurred to me that you, like a towel, are more versatile than a Snuggie. I have to admit I did momentarily wish my towel had sleeves, but I knew what I was getting into when I left my jacket at home.
The post above seems to show very little understanding of the Snuggie metaphor, and introduce some unrelated facts. I’m going to retroactively imbue it with meaning.
Pulling my towel around me for warmth=listened to various internet-powered musicians on my iPod
more versatile than a Snuggie=more versatile than a Snuggie
Left my jacket at home=left the TV and radio behind
Wished my towel had sleeves=wished more of the internet musicians I discovered had big enough audiences that they’d tour to where I live
Something just occurred to me this morning, and I wonder if it might have been part of your intent in allowing your income to be known. There are artists who have labels right now and have put out CDs, who are making less then you. Heck, there are artists under labels who are in debt (to the label). I would like to think that such artists might hear this podcast, and become hopeful that they, too, might be more successful using the internet, and might find a way to free themselves and make their dream come true.
What I’m saying is, you’re providing inspiration here. Which is awesome.
I’m gonna ignore the internet and financial angles of this for awhile and focus on the genre snobbery.
I think “novelty” music gets used as a pejorative. It’s like saying, “You had to use a gimmick”. Nay, “People only like this for its gimmick.” There are certainly artists that go for novelty music with their hearts and souls. I don’t think Parry Gripp would describe what his recent solo efforts any other way. But I’d classify you more as powerpop – music à la Cheap Trick, early Cars, They Might Be Giants, Fountains of Wayne – rock music engineered to be enjoyable by many through just anything that would be pleasing to the ear. The way someone would try to make a pop record back when records could be hits by being catchy and fun.
Certainly some of your more jesting Thing-a-Week entries (pants and the fanciness thereof come to mind) certainly conjure up the “novelty” label, but in the sense they use it, I think they’re trying to diminish the artistic integrity you brought to the table. Almost as if they’re going “don’t try this at home, kids, he’s just writing joke songs”. As if When You Go and A Walk With George don’t round out your discography wonderfully. Just like BNL will probably always be known for One Week instead of Call and Answer, but those who were on board know the whole story there.
They call you a fluke as if you’re the first of your kind, but you’re part of a trend. Artists doing more and more without the major labels. Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead getting their music out there was inspiring to me as a musician, but I was well aware they already had their fans. The fact you got discovered without major label promotion is very impressive, but once again, I like to think of it as a start of something, not a fluke.
I’m sure they tried to diminish it as “an internet thing”, but who’s gonna use the internet to discover an artist and make him a superstar? Us geeks will do it FIRST, that’s no surprise, but they’re ignorant if they think other niches won’t follow suit.
So to these panelists I say, “You’re wrong. Kids, DO try this at home. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66knvY3vxsA <-relevant, especially in this context.) Write the music you want, do is much of it as you can on your own, and when you're stumped, ask your friends for help. Put your soul into your music and see how far you can get it out there – the resources are there to get it further than ever possible."
I just listened to the podcast and visited your website. After I finished reading your blog post and began reading the comments, I realize your fans and commenters are leagues above other commenters. Well done!
As an economist I do think they missed the point – that is, which business model best provide goods (i.e., music) to people at the price, quantity and to a quality they desire. From an economic POV, this is the only real question.
What happened (and tends to happen with these discussions in general) is that discussion of the best way to meet market demands get confused by discussions of individual property holders right to an economic rent (i.e., the value that can be obtained beyond the cost of bring a good to market). Thus, musicians and the music industry are rent seekers (in an economic sense). That is, they attempt to manipulate the political, legal and economic conditions to increase the price the customer pays for music beyond the cost of production. This is perfectly normal – it is much easier to be a rent seeker than to come with new products that meet consumer demand. For example, it is much easier to bring out new sets of old songs by famous bands you know are popular and to which you own than to find new bands and market their material.
Over time people naturally come to believe their rents are “rights” – they develop complex moral and practical arguments that explain why their rents are natural and necessary. This is human nature – very few people like to be thought of as unnecessary. In reality their “rights” are simply the result of a set of legal, technological, political and economic factors that coincided to allow them to monopolize production and marketing at some time in the past.
Thus, musicians (sorry) and labels have no more “right” to a certain income that do harriers, buggy whip, milliners, glove makers or four-loom weavers. It hard but true – market demand and technology throws up opportunities and takes them away. Businesses continue to exist because they produce goods people want. People are prepared to pay a certain price for a good (in this case music of a particular type) and entrepreneurs enter the market to sell it to them. If the good meets peoples requirements, then it sells and the entrepreneur win – if not they exit the market. Smart entrepreneurs figure out a way to deliver the good at the price people will pay and make a buck – dumb ones (aka record labels) don’t and go bust.
From an economic POV, Jonathan’s business model works in the 21st Century. He delivers a good people want and he makes a living that is sufficient for him to stay in the market. The labels do not. They have a business model that needs to pay for very high salaries for a lot of people (most of them not involved in the actual production of music) and support huge production and marketing costs. This system worked well in an industrial setting but does not work in the current economy.
This becomes apparent when you think about music from a historical POV. Historically most musicians never made much money — music was “free”. Anyone with talent that knew a song could sing it and try to get paid. People probably didn’t have all the music they wanted – most of it was probably pretty bad and unless you happened to have a talented musician in your community you could call on whenever you wanted, you didn’t get enough of it. Only when a rich patron or large music hall appeared could musicians make big money and only the very rich got all the music they wanted (e.g., Louis XVII could listen to a string quartet in perfect fidelity at any time).
Then technology changed and music (along with a lot of things) became industrialized and was pumped out to mass audiences. People could afford a lot more music and musicians that were popular could earn a lot of money (they did loose variety as they did with other industrialized products but the quality/quantity issues made the trade worth it). Furthermore, the industrialized producers of music (i.e., the labels) made a ton of money too. Ultimately the drive to meet the demand for music meant that the cost fell effectively to zero – when a little extra bit of technology came in and supplies could no longer enforce their property rights, the industrial model collapsed.
At this point, musicians and labels found their monopolistic, rent-seeking model didn’t work. What was actually happening was that music was becoming pre-industrial again. The only way to make big bucks is a big concert hall or a rich patron. What Jonathan and others found were a series of little patrons – for the privilege of being given tremendous access and enjoying his music, we are prepared to pay him to do whatever he likes in the hope that it turns out to be something we like (just like Mozart in Vienna).
Seen from this perspective, industrialized music was a roughly 100 year phenomena that started with the phonograph and entered with digital revolution. The label had their day and are on their way out.
It was this kind of discussion that was lacking – Planet Money (which I love) – really missed the opportunity to have a good economic discussion and got stuck in an argument about “rights” and the necessity of one business model.
Some of the comments on Planet Money were dismissive, but others were fair and all in all it’s an EXCELLENT podcast. More importantly, the outcome of this episode is I’ve found a GREAT artist I probably wouldn’t have heard of otherwise. I’m glad they ran the episode. I don’t listen to much modern music, but will be listening to yours.
I’m a regular Planet Money listener and recent fan of JoCo. The piece in Planet Money I paid attention to was your interview, which was geared towards explaining to the public that traditional labels are lumbering dinosaur models and that it is possible to make a decent living on your own. PM did a decent job of discussing the benefits of each model. As much as you cringe over discussing your net revenue, I was surprised you didn’t clear more from your sales (that may be due to people like me buying albums through iTunes while, now, I’m clued in that I can buy directly from your website).
These people from NPR Music (I was surprised they have a music division) aspired to reduce success to a formula for songs leading to sold out stadium concerts and their own ideas for a cushy job at a record label. They completely missed the part where some of those traditional mega-stars clear less than $0.5 mil as a band and the jobs they aspire to (professional music reviewers, most likely) is not necessary in your success pathway.
I agree, that particular podcast was not Planet Moneys finest hour.
They basically said that musicians don’t know how to promote themselves. Excuse me, but if they don’t have an exhibitionist streak then what are they doing in the entertainment industry??? Self promotion have always been an essential part of the business.
And the technical challenges. Give me a break.
@Tori Adams: Thanks for the overview analysis, it was a great read, and much more informative than that Planet Money podcast. They should have had you on as the guest host!
It was kind of weird but I almost detected jealousy in their voices. This could have been a misinterpretation of resenting change but the fact is that the internet has lowered the barriers to entry. People no longer have the excuse that they have talent but the system works against them.
I’ll tell you what it made me think of. It was like Alex Blumberg was trying to explain how the internet could be helpful to artists, and he was explaining it to his elderly Aunt Frannie and Uncle Jacob. And since they hardly use the internet at all – only for forwarding emails that Uncle Jacob gets from his ex-military buddies, and Auntie Frannie doesn’t even use it for that, she just plays solitaire on mahjong on the computer – so they just don’t understand how that thing you send emails on could be used to sell music. Is JoCo sending a bunch of emails, is that how he’s selling? It must be some kind of fluke! Normal people can’t make any money on this new-fangled interweb. That’s crazy talk.
I do want to stress that Alex Blumberg was great, though. But he always is.
I did find it fascinating how they really dug in their heels to keep their position – not just sticking by it, but denying any evidence to the contrary.
I’m sure they’re lovely people, but it was like listening to a political debate.
What surprised me about Frannie and Jacob’s response was the insistence that “not everyone” could do it. Alex didn’t challenge them with “not everyone” can make it with a record label. From their insistence it would seem that anyone who gets signed on with a label is assured a comfortable income. It cuts both ways.
As to your net income, yay! and YAY! for sharing it. Hopefully it will inspire other musicians. After all they just have to be 10% as successful as you and they’ll have a higher than US National median income. If you can’t reach for that you’re not trying at all.
There seems to exist this perjorative attitude towards things that are internet-based in general-an Us vs. Them kind of attitude. People talk as if they have some sort of preconcieved and dissmissive notion that only cartoon-cliche-nerds, lunatics and anonymous dwell there, and that internet-based businesses are the new hula-hoop. I think it’s natural for people to want to dismiss what they feel they are dismissed by-though they do themselves a huge disservice. At first glance internet culture may seem nerdy and full of inside jokes, but it’s a mistake to think of it as nothing but nerdery. People who do so close thier minds to the opportunities of a global presence, a wider viewpoint, an easier ability to connect to what might be important to them as an individual. (I suspect that perhaps people who are unable to connect on a peronal level to the internet may simply be baffled by options.) Business-wise, the internet is an amazing way to reach an audience that might be otherwise unaware of your work. It’s a smart use of the technology available. It saddens me a little to hear it trivialized.
Speaking of trivializing, I have a severe distaste for the term “novelty music”, and reject the use of it. People connect with music on an emotional and intellectual level. Your music is as honest, interesting, catchy and poingant as it is funny. Your talent and versatility are incredible. Just because you can have a giggle at a song doesn’t make it dismissable, or any less valid than any other song. So, either all music is a novelty, or none of it is.
I’d also like to say thanks for releasing karaoke versions of your songs-I know of no other indie artist that does so, which is a shame. They are always a hit at our local pub-especially First of May. And it helps us spread the JoCo love! Great idea.
I sense a new JoCo vengeance song coming on: “I’m Just a Snuggie” – it’ll be your best song yet. Do it! And be super snarky. Heheheheh
When I first learned of Jonathan Coulton I was first impressed by the music itself, which I thought was really pop literate, well-crafted, nicely performed etc. Next I noticed the clever lyrics, and after listening to all the songs, I found that some are far more than clever. (I’m still not convinced “I crush everything” is absolutely literal in its giant squidness.) I never thought Joco tunes as novelty songs, really, no more than TMBG or FOW songs. They’re refreshingly unique and musically solid, and for me, that alone is victory for artist and listener.
Still need to dig into the rights and economics underlying the Snuggie metaphor, but what worries me these days is the lack of cultural glue we have with entertainment products. There’s more music (books and movies) than time and ears. The fact that this community exists and flourishes based on the music and the artist in a straight pipeline, however, does make me grin.
Yep. Upon reading the rest of the comments in this thread, I am convinced. The snuggie thing was an attempt at cleverness, a failed metaphor. Snuggie Debunked.
HA! I should try the Slashdot route .. ; )
I’m in a different industry experiencing a very similar struggle between traditional publishing and independant writers.
http://jgordonsmith.com (and click on ‘post categories’ for kindle).
“Any publicity is good publicity” might be appropriate here. I suspect your music (and business model) has been introduced to a not insignificant number of new people as a result of the Planet Money interview (it’s why I’m here: never heard of you before despite being a long time geek and reading Slashdot since before their parent IPO’d).
Listening to the podcast, I got the impression that the NPR Music folks (_not_ Alex Blumberg) were trying to compare apples to oranges, while Alex was attempting to point out that perhaps the existing label business model didn’t need to apply. The response from the people with NPR Music appeared to be the normal reaction of people vested in the existing mode of operation when disruptive change comes along. Sort of like the telco folks reacted to this weird Internet thing back in the early to mid-90s. Over time, the labels will evolve or die (most likely, the majority will take the latter option, just like the Baby Bells).
Great point Jonathan and very true. If there’s anything I’ve learned in the music business (and biz in general) is that anything that is a huge success is repeatable. It gets props not just for the novelty, but also for the ingenuity. Ye done good! Keep it up!
I would suggest that a ‘novelty’ song is one whose chief appeal is some gimmick that doesn’t hold up to repeated listens. Say, “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer,” or “Roly Poly Fishheads.” What you write are not novelty songs. Many are funny, sure, but they are musically, lyrically, and emotionally complex and practically beg for repeated listens.
I can imagine someone listening to most of the White Album and concluding that the Beatles write only novelty songs, by whatever definition they’re labeling you. And that’s just silly.
This touches upon several problems creatives have to endure:
1. If you are humorous, you are considered shallow.
2. If you are extremely creative, people will say you have too much time on your hands.
etc… I could name more instances, but these seem especially pertinent.
No matter! These same people love and enjoy the creative and humorous work that we create, even if they don’t understand the process or why they themselves enjoy it.
Cheers!
Two things really bothered me about the podcast
the first thing that struck me as just completely wrong was the assertion that you “hit the internet lottery” and that your still living off those winnings. I don’t think that’s true at all. Every week, heck every day someone “hits the internet lottery” someone’s video goes viral thanks to facebook / twitter or youtube and they become quasi famous. that actually is NOT all that unusual in this day and age. Sometimes people are able to monetize that momentary success (antoine dodson, the david after the dentist family, etc) but that success and income is not only temporary but it’s extremely fleeting. What are the chances that william hung, antoine dodson, or the owners of “clark griswold” (the dog from the viral talking dog video – “what was in there?”) are going to be able to parlay their 15 minutes of internet fame into a long term successful career and revenue stream? Going viral over the internet is not unusual, making something out of it long term though kinda is.
which brings me to the second thing that irritated me. The podcast kinda tries to paint you as if you’re lazy which is really unfair. They point out that you post on facebook / twitter, release a song to the internet, write a blog post and they say “That’s his job” and then in another portion of the show talk about how you weren’t willing to do it “The hard way” and drive around in a van getting one or two more people per show each show. I don’t think that’s fair at all. First of all staying on top of social media, staying connected with fans, writing and recording new material etc has to be a ton of work without even factoring in the business side of things that you aren’t having handled by a label. Just because you didn’t want to follow the old model that was discussed in the podcast doesn’t mean you’re lazy. It means that for whatever reason you don’t see the benefit of doing it that way. You don’t believe the reward is great enough for the effort you’re putting in or the enjoyment you get out of it.
Tim Ferriss and Seth Godin have been talking about the niche market for years. Thousands of people make money through businesses set up to fill a need or a demand in a niche market. Music is no exception. I am doing the same with my band and my music and I was completely inspired by your story! Thanks again for making me feel excited about my music!
It really bothered me when they kept saying that your success isn’t replicable. As you said:
“I make songs that are good and then I sell them (and concert tickets, and Tshirts) to the people who want them – that’s my business model, and it’s patently obvious that it’s replicable because I stole it from every other recording artist in the world. ”
The important thing is finding your fans, and if tapped, the internet can make it much easier to find fans and get your music into their ipods. 5 years ago having geeky fans was useful since the distribution methods were new. Now it doesn’t matter since so many people are on facebook. As you said, you can now write a song about curling and know how to get that song to the curling community. Equally, if you wrote a more mainstream song about being a teenager in love, there are places you can target to get a lot of exposure.
I think the big deal is that there is no way for a musician to make a living with music skills alone. You either have to be open to learning about the business side of music or you have to find someone who can help you. The internet makes it easier to do it on your own, but it’s still not easy. Lots of musicians don’t want to have to think about websites or paypal or bandwidth or wordpress themes or whatever. For them, your method isn’t replicable.
Also there are plenty of ways to spend your day doing music stuff without banking on “winning the lottery.” Example: A combination of teaching private lessons, playing weddings with your band, and publishing your own songs on your blog. Sure it’s not as glamorous as code-monkey or Justin Beiber, but it still could lead to a rock-star life and you don’t have the starving artist problem. It is not all or nothing.
I had never heard of you until I heard the Planet Money podcast, and I thought the same thing as you when listening to their comments. They missed the point.
The fact is that there is a market for music that won’t be diminished by the internet. And now people’s choices are not limited. This will spread the distribution out a little bit.
You hit the nail on the head. Artist don’t have to sell out MSG.
I like your stuff – keep up the good work.
Jonathan,
I had never heard of you before the PM podcast but I really admire what you’re doing.
My real point in posting is that from a music fan’s perspective, it absolutely blows my mind that the music reporters from NPR didn’t know about others with a similar model. I traded Grateful Dead tapes all through my 20s and that business model worked BEFORE the Internet.
Obviously this is nothing new to you. Thanks for giving us the run down. I’ll always dig the Planet Money team and I hope they never invite those god-awful music people back.
When Planet Money played your songs, they were participating in the continued success of your business plan. By bringing your music to new listeners. Some of whom will become as addicted to it as I am. The fact that they were creating new JoCo fans while blathering away about whether or not your business plan is viable is actually pretty ironic.
Preach on, Johnny, preach on!
I hope the NPR people have read this post of yours. Not to spite them or anything, but maybe to influence their future interviews to be more insightful and less scathing.
I admire your success, and your ability to make full use of the opportunities that the internet-age of music has offered you (low overhead, connections with your fans, full ownership, etc etc etc etc).
Now please write a song about Snuggies. That would be oh so fantastic.
“First, writing novelty songs is actually a real thing that you can do, and many talented people have had fine careers doing it, so let’s not go around denigrating it, shall we?”
Really? Please elucidate. Name one besides Weird Al.
Nirvana a novelty act? We have been listening to Nirvana for 20 years now. We will not be listening to you 20 miinutes from now.
(completely off-topic – JC, you know that Alex and Nicki are really old friends, right? I assume so but still, small world.)
Chris Vaaler: He didn’t call Nirvana a novelty act; he gave Nirvana an example of “a new thing that somebody invented and marketed and sold to enormous success.” Just like a Snuggie. The point being that the comparison isn’t entirely inappropriate, merely indicative of Kelley choosing a dismissive metaphor.
As far as writers of novelty songs: Tom Lehrer, Frank Zappa, They Might Be Giants, Barenaked Ladies, Tiny Tim, Stompin’ Tom Connors, the Arrogant Worms, Tally Hall, and Moxy Früvous are all known for funny songs. I’m not a big fan of the genre though; those are just some well-known acts that might count.
While I was angry at their dismissal of you and your accomplishments, I would be remiss in not pointing out that I own two snuggies, and think them a fine product. Likewise do I provide a lot of green paper to the furtherance of the magnificence that is JoCo.
They linked to your post…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/05/23/136581218/jonathan-coulton-madonnas-a-snuggie-too
Frank Zappa, They Might Be Giants, Barenaked Ladies are NOT novelty acts – and Tom Lehrer was big 50 years ago. As for the rest of your examples, they are obscure and prove my point.
Chris Vaaler says: “Frank Zappa, They Might Be Giants, Barenaked Ladies are NOT novelty acts – and Tom Lehrer was big 50 years ago.”
No one said they were, nor did you ask for a “novelty act.” For the record, Jonathan Coulton is not a “novelty act”, either. What you requested was someone who writes “novelty” songs, as if this is some kind of a put down. TMBG is pretty well known for writing what could be considered “novelty” songs. They are my favorite band in the world.
I think your objection to the term is the negative connotation that you’re assuming from the word “novelty.” That it’s the kind of song you listen to for about a month, then you get tired of the ‘novelty’ of it because the song has no depth. But not all humorous or “quirky” (jeepers, I hate that word worse than “novelty”) songs have no depth, as TMBG have proved. Birdhouse in Your Soul may just be “a silly little song about a night light”, but it’s an absolutely brilliant one that I have listened to countless times, and will listen to more in the future. Similarly, Jonathan Coulton’s “I Crush Everything” may be “a silly/sad song about the yearnings of a giant squid”, but it is a brilliant one which I never tire of.
Also, Tom Lehrer may have been popular 50 years ago, but he’s still friggin’ amazing. Does music die after 50 years or something? Is this a thing? Do I have to stop listening to Puccini now?
Chris Vaaler: I’m not entirely sure what your point is. You not being familiar with an artist means they don’t have a career? Writing novelty songs is a terrible crime that must be derided, but if one just writes funny songs that are popular it’s somehow ok?
I wasn’t interested in JoCo’s music when I first heard it, because–as I said–I’m not really into novelty songs. (BNL is the only band I listed that I was ever a fan of–the rest are just artists I can think of who are known for funny songs.) I get not being into a style of music; I don’t get your apparent need to insist no one else likes it.
If you’re mad at JoCo for dissing Nirvana: *my* point was that he didn’t.
Reading my post over, I think it comes across a lot bitchier than I intended. My apologies.
I can forgive people for not liking the music, and even for not understanding JoCo’s appeal, but it irks me when anyone tries to invalidate the fact that he’s actually a talented and clever songwriter, which is part of why he is so much more popular than most people who post funny songs on the internet.
When business and art collide, business cannot understand art and dismisses it. I see it all the time at work (at a financial company).
What’s truly irritating is that these so-called music experts can’t tell how good these songs are. Did they even bother to listen?
Jonathan Coulton. Heard the podcast, and I came to check you out online. I am currently sending myself and a friend your website. Nice. As far as the podcast, you bring up the questions that I went away thinking. With number one, how can someone take this idea and aid other artists that are trying to do what they love to do and, at the same time make some amount of side income or be their main source of income. Yeah, yeah, we know social networking is the key, but the interesting thing is how well you do it, and how well it works for you. The point that I liked was the fact that this worked for you, meaning, that we cannot go build a template and repeat it for everyone else. You’re aren’t a Snuggie cause we can’t make any more of you. You’re not a fluke because your YOU and this is what you do. Now if I hit a 95 mph fastball over Wrigley Field, now that’s a fluke, but if I’m Arod, that’s a different story.
So my point. My point is this. I called on of my friends who is an indepent muscian (I’m a business guy), John Rumpza, and told him your story, or at least my variation of it. He loved it, it was inspiring, but John goes on to say that, WOW he put a lot of work into that, I wouldn’t be able to do that. And that’s what hit me, look at what you built, look at your creation, some how I found you on Planet Money. This isn’t a fluke. Your business model is this = Jonathan Colton!!! no matter what you do, you’re gonna stick to it. You can’t fail. Unlike companies or other artists, they have a certain product they sell, a specific image they are showing. I work for a company that says, “oh, no Joe, we can’t do that, that’s not in our bag of tricks.”
Now I believe there is a service here that is availible, if we just peel back the layers of the onion. One that respects the artist and work, one that is as uniquie as the organizm that created it. But, yet again, I get caught in a fairy tale. Where greed doens’t exist, and the fact that there is some amount of profit to be made, but whereas the company would actually charge a fee that is reasonable and fair (not 40%).
I wanted that discussion. Thank you for doing what you do.
Don’t feel bad! You weren’t whining. It was a shockingly lame episode from a team that normally produces top-notch work. I got to the end of it and I’m thinking, “That’s…that’s it? That’s all you’re going to do?” They couldn’t do a simple Google search to try and find other non-label musicians?
It was, sadly, ordinary journalism, where they looked at one example, ignored it while crying out “Internet: THREAT OR MENACE?” and called it a day.
I only recently started to listen to Planet Money on my new Android phone. I have enjoyed the prior episodes of Planey Money that I listened to so far. I was disappointed with this podcast, since as you say, they did not really talk much about the “business model”, how you actually did it (make a living as a musician without a record label or contract). But on a positive note, I had never heard of Jonathan Coulton before today, so at least I now have heard your song, “Code Monkey”, which I enjoyed!
NPR focused on the novelty songs. As a computer programmer (almost 30 years) and part-time musician and someone who likes novelty songs, I say “good for you”. I think the NPR Music hosts are just a little bit jealous of your success.
You are more than just a musician, singer and songwriter. You also have done a decent enough job of recording your work, so you have some recording / audio skills. As a computer programmer, you can setup your own website / blog. You obviously enjoy writing. And, you can create and maintain a spreadsheet. A lot of full time musicians I know, who are great musicians, don’t possess the diverse set of skills that you brought to bear to your small but successful music business.
I think Planet Money’s regular hosts do a fine job, but when they brought in the NPR Music folks they were not able to focus as well on the economic and business side of what you do (and what Planet Money is really about).
Also, for someone to do novelty songs, one must sing well enough and enunciate such that we can understand the words and appreciate the humor. Many other songwriters and singers do not always sing clearly enough for the audience to fully grasp what they are singing. But I found your delivery and singing was done well enough for me to understand your lyrics. Bravo!
As a guitar player myself, I liked some of your chord progressions and melodies. Many singer songwriters today are just “repetitive chord progression” writers and/or “repetitive melody” singers. However, you demonstrate more skills in this regards than the average singer songwriter these days.
Best of luck!
Just heard the Planet Money podcast you were on and you now have a new fan. Can’t understand what was up with the NPR Music folks. It was a waste even having them on. You’re an artist and as far as I can see you have the same business model of every other artist. You work your butt off to create something, promote it, and make a living off it.
The NPR Music folks seemed distracted by the crazy internet thing. When what they shouldn’t of been asking is why are the folks still using the traditional studio/label model so lazy? I was actually yelling at the radio every time they started yammering.
Anyway, I’m glad they had you on because now I can partake in your awesomeness.
Really enjoying this discussion. As a follower of both Planet Money and JoCo, I don’t come down on the either-or argument as being right. Planet Money does some incredible reporting, but no matter how much research they do, they can’t be specialists in what Jonathan does. No reporting can possibly master all the facts and nuances of a given topic, but overall I think they did quite a good job exploring a multi-faceted topic.
Nor do I see Jonathan’s tone as defensive (as one might when compared to a Snuggie), but a well-written elaboration and disagreement. As I tweeted before, which seems to jive with what he’s saying, is that fluke=extraordinary. Not everyone makes it in entertainment, thus anyone who does can be seen as a fluke.
I thought the Planet Money piece was a good debate, and worth listening to, whether you agree with it or not. I think Jonathan’s post and the Planet Money podcast offer two sides of a coin, both worth a read and a listen. Here’s the Planet Money piece:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/05/20/136496085/the-friday-podcast-is-this-man-a-snuggie
I found it strange that two (young?) people who work for NPR could be so entrenched in establishment thinking. The whole issue with the 21st century music industry is that they are trying to sell was is largely an obsolete product (physical reproductions of music). What’s more, small labels benefit from the internet tremendously in terms of exposure and aesthetic, able to form a much more coherent identity through digital means than before. By and large, they’re cultural critics, and I’m sure they have a bias considering that they deal with labels a lot in order to get content delivered to them. In the media world (I’m talking news media) there’s a huge amount of work to be done in terms of sheer logistics in order to get material put together, as well as significant turn-around time when journalists do a piece. If you want to submit a new product (book, CD, game) for review in a major media outlet, you often have to do it months ahead of time! I imagine they probably love labels in that, as companies, they are more organized and punctual than a whole bunch of musicians.
That being said, I think they’re mixing up the connection between art and economics, and ultimately falling victim to the rationale that record companies would have us believe – that through the shoring up of hapless artists, labels are what allow creativity to happen. This may have occasionally been true years ago when everyone had to work through physical distribution networks – now it is blessedly just the opposite. With a little education and a reasonable amount of effort, musicians make significantly better profits by interacting directly with their customer base.
Ultimately the host seemed to come down on your side, though – and he even seemed a little bewildered by their responses. Go Alex!
I think that they also miss the point when they talk about the “bare bones” website. This is the problem with a lot businesses in my mind. They want to make things so slick that usability loses.
I think the lesson from your case (JoCo) is to make good content (music, blog, wiki, forums, etc.) and make it easily available to consumers. It’s not rocket science and you’ve said this before, possibly with slightly different words. I think that Apple gets this too with the app store and itunes, but some people still don’t get it. If you make it easier and/or more convenient to buy music than to steal it, then people will buy especially if it’s good. (the snuggie, available at every walgreens)
my 0.02
Woo, Jonathan!
I tried to stick up with you on the discussion off the post from the moment I saw that ridiculous “Is this man a snuggie?” headline, but you put your finger on the issues and the blinders of the NPR music people so much better than I could have/did.
You’re awesome. I’m going to go listen to the Jonathan Coulton Station on Pandora now…