The irony is that Michael Jackson is the ideal artist for digital distribution. EVERYONE likes at least one Michael Jackson song. Or at least everyone I’ve ever met. So though his prime was well before the iTunes era his broad appeal shows how digital distribution can help an artist sell more music by giving the consumer the ability to pick and choose what songs they want.
No, actually. As many people who own, say, Thriller, I bet there are even more who like songs off the album but don't own it. Then he dies, they realize they'd like to hear those songs again, realize they don't actually own it, and download the one or two they remember.
Actually my point was that there are a lot of people out there who maybe liked one of his songs pre-iTunes but weren't inclined to buy the whole album so they just forgot about it. Then when he died they realized they could now buy just that one song which is why he's getting these monster sales numbers.
From that I extrapolated that you can make a lot of money if not more money from a bunch of micro purchases.
I don't own any MJ music, but I like at least 5 songs enough to buy them. (Only reason I didn't is lazyness in getting around to clean up my music collection and having it all on my computer etc.)
This is kind of ironic, if you consider that digital distribution can empower the artist to sell without a whole bunch of intermediaries and therefore benefit more from the sales...
That's because the empowerment you speak of is only in theory ... the reality is that even though it's possible to sell on your own, you can't make it big (or even a good living) without getting your way into a very closed, selective and exploitative market controlled by a handful of big media companies (Apple included).
been through all this before. It's a backtype wordpress plugin, ironically a YC startup and we're not changing it. Although it would be great to see the threaded comments (which i believe are coming), the comments are all relevant to the story and we link right back to where they came from.
Interesting. Do you happen to know what the breakdown is for the major companies?
I always assumed Apple was like Wal-Mart, having the upper hand in negotiation and knowing how to use it. Maybe that's only the case for independent artists?
Apple isn't quite in the same position of power as Wal-Mart. Without inventory (which in this case is unique) Apple wouldn't have a store. This gives more control to the labels who can 'hold out' until they get the deal they want. If Apple says "screw off" to Sony/BMG or any of the big boys that's a huge gaping hole in their inventory that can't be replaced.
Wal-Mart on the other hand can stock underwear or TV's or food from pretty much anyone, so they hold all the cards and can pretty much write their own deal.
Still, Apple has some control as they basically own digital music market so I would imagine at this point, the labels don't have a viable 'plan b'.
not really, apparently he sold 750 million records, and only made 700 million during his career. And most of that money came from Beatles rights ownership and concerts.
Good point, even with a $15 or $20 CD the artists 'take' is probably only slightly higher (maybe even lower) than their cut of an iTunes sold track. All that 'missing' money is why the recording industry (mainly the big labels) are hurting and not the artists (they were always getting reamed).
MJ probably had different deals throughout his career, but I would guess that even $700 million is a low estimate of his earnings.
