
The Louis C.K. Experiment is Flawed - amayne
https://plus.google.com/u/0/103263839307540915364/posts/hp6GBoxHNG4
======
dodedo
This guy doesn't get it. Here are his two main misunderstandings:

1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable
format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general
popularity. Every single one, without even one exception. The author claims
Louis got an "inordinate" amount of attention, but I'm not sure this is the
case. I suspect the same level of buzz would have been generated had he
somehow managed to produce a DVD at the $5 price point with identical content.

2) Popularity is derived from interesting media products. There's no mumbo-
jumbo about old media/new media. If you've produced something interesting and
compelling, people will want to talk about it. Attributing the acquisition of
fame to "traditional media" is brainless. Old media is no different than so
called new media -- they both carry stories of interest relative to the level
of interest.

And there are countless examples of folks who've generated their own buzz by
producing a compelling product, as folks on HN should know better than anyone.
You can buy a bit of publicity, but it's compelling, interesting and memorable
content that creates a true monetizable spot in the public's consciousness.
This is very repeatable and it is done daily.

~~~
mjijackson
> 1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable
> format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general
> popularity. Every single one, without even one exception.

That's not true. Radiohead pulled the plug on their In Rainbows experiment
after only 3 months in 2007. They decided to go the more traditional route
instead. Why would they (an incredibly popular band) do something like that if
sales were truly in proportion to their popularity?

~~~
ddw
Do you have a link for this "pulled the plug" assertion? It's my understanding
that Radiohead always intended to release the CD in stores all along because
"some fans would not have the technological means to obtain the new material."
according to Wikipedia.

Yes, they do still believe in traditional distribution to a point (after
giving it away for three months), but I think it's unfair to characterise it
as a failure.

~~~
dodedo
He's suggesting that because Radiohead eventually took down the page, the
experiment was a failure. He's conveniently ignoring the fact that their
online opt-in pay system generated more revenue than their last published
album before they dismantled it, demonstrating that demand/revenue in the new
model exceeded the old.

I _do_ have a link to cite: <http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444>

------
drumdance
The author makes some good points, but it's a bit of a tautology. Louis CK is
successful because he's really good at what he does, works really hard, and
has been doing it for a long time. Yes, he gets mainstream media exposure.
Because _that's what happens when you're a successful entertainer_.

Obviously, not every comedian can do this overnight. But neither did Louis CK.
He's been working at it for over twenty years, doing a lot of standup at clubs
all over the country. Building his career brick by brick until one day he has
enough star power to sell his stuff direct.

~~~
amayne
I don't think it's a tautology. I mention several well-known online
personalities that don't have big media exposure and they obviously don't have
the same level of success.

The formula for C.K. involved major television networks. My point is that I
don't think you could do this without them.

------
mjijackson
Radiohead tried a similar experiment to Louis C.K.'s back in 2007 with their
album In Rainbows. But after 3 months they decided that the online sales
weren't working out and that they should pursue the more traditional avenue of
selling CD's out of retail stores. Two similar stories with vastly different
outcomes.

I say that it's similar because both are well established acts in the
entertainment industry, releasing their work unencumbered by DRM (or other
encryption) via a website. As I see it, the main differences are (in very
general terms):

\- Radiohead said that fans could pay whatever they wanted for the album,
Louis C.K. charged $5 \- Radiohead are a band, Louis C.K. is a comedian \-
Radiohead tried it in 2007, Louis C.K. in 2011

Of these 3, the most significant difference that I see is that Radiohead
didn't set any price tag on their work while Louis C.K did. By some estimates
more than half of the people who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying
a penny for it. Louis C.K., on the other hand, charged $5 right up front. The
price tag was so low that it was a pretty easy decision for most who bought
it, but it was there nonetheless.

I think that speaks volumes about setting customer's expectations
appropriately, an area in which the software industry traditionally shoots
itself in the foot. Ask your customers to pay something. If you have something
of value, they will.

~~~
dodedo
That's a nice story about Radiohead but it isn't true. In fact, Radiohead's
online release of In Rainbows was a smashing success and generated more money
in opt-in online sales than their entire previous album. Cite:

<http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/40444>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_pla...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Sales_and_chart_placings)

------
sgentle
If this is a one-off attributable only to Louis's popularity, how do you
explain the success of the various Indie Bundles? At least in some form, the
low-cost no-middlemen wide-reach movement seems to be gaining steam on all
fronts. Maybe it didn't work for In Rainbows, but Bandcamp seems to be going
great guns.

~~~
amayne
I think that's a great way to release things. Since so few people release
actual numbers, it's hard to know what counts as a success. When they have big
ones, like C.K. did, they tend to trumpet them loudly.

------
baddox
It's flawed only in the sense that it says nothing regarding the topic of
artists rising to fame with this business model. Who ever said that was the
point? This is like saying a clinical trial for a cancer treatment is flawed
because it says nothing about seat belt safety.

~~~
amayne
NY Times and Wired.

