There's more opportunity than ever ― in the history of the world ― for artists to sell merchandise and monetize their brands. The only problem is that very few artists are making any money from these non-traditional sources. Or, even pursuing the possibilities.
This was a slide presented at Midem on Monday by the Future of Music Coalition. It's the result of 18 months of surveying musicians across the US, with nearly 5,400 participating in exhaustive, time-consuming questionaires. "Merchandising and branding is only relevant to a small number of US-based musicians," Future of Music Coalition consultant Kristin Thomson shared.
In many cases, it's not that artists can't or won't spread into areas like merchandise, it's simply that it wouldn't make much sense. For example, certain sub-groups like orchestral instrumentalists and session musicians are typically investing little time on t-shirts. Those musicians typically get overlooked, but they formed a substantial part of the survey.
But the study also included a lot of bands - and the Coalition uncovered not only a shockingly-low level of income from merchandise, but also from other non-traditional, brand-related streams like sponsorships on an aggregated level. Here's what the surveys showed for all 'other' non-traditional categories, which includes a grab-bag ranging from shwag to sponsorships.
Then again, the ones that are pursuing these streams are forward-thinking and oftentimes fearless about experimentation. "Artists are increasingly strategic about their brand," Thomson explained. "For musicians and artists that can leverage their brands, they benefit from being flexible, open-minded, strategic, and unafraid to involve their fans."
And, completely unafraid to pursue things like publicly-available grants, Kickstarter, acting gigs, corporate-sponsored videos, and limited-edition merch. Which brings us to a highly-adventurous, pioneering group of non-traditional artists, at least on the commerce side.
Comments Closed
@MusicDreamer Tuesday, January 31, 2012
There is a lot of money to be made through merch if an artist develops a distinct brand. I feel that this "income" from grants and fan funding should not even be referred to as such. An act is a profitable business when it is already showing some return on investment. The investment itself cannot be seen as income.
Tony Gutierrez
"The Jerry Maguire of the Music Business"
@MusicDreamer
KENO SIMS Sunday, February 05, 2012
I AGREE!!!
@mrjmedeiros Tuesday, January 31, 2012
WILL Tuesday, January 31, 2012
No band without some buzz or recoginition beyond their local bar is going to be able to exploit meaningful 360 revenue channels..
Sponsorship? It's all about eyeballs and most unsigned artists don't have a large enough following to warrant it.
Merc? Beyond mum and dad and a few core loyal friends/fans, t's and hoodies or whatever aren't going to be snapped up.
Gigs/tours? Pay to play in alot of cases for small DIY bands.
Best bet? To kidnap a well known radio DJ who refuses to play your music, strip him/her naked, tie feet and wrists, stick a CD or photo of your band on their privates, call all newspapers and TV, tell them you're going to dump said DJ in a packed well known shopping area, get a shit load of publicity, do prison time, hope to God you aren't a one hit wonder, exit prison, become huge.
Another Expert!! Tuesday, January 31, 2012
!!! "meaningful 360 revenue channels" !!!
No such thing as meaningful in 360 deals in 2012's capitalism.
@michaelsb Tuesday, January 31, 2012
This needs to be discussed.
Anthony Burbidge Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The truth is no one wants your merch unless you are famous enough to justify having your face plastered on merch in the first place. Any indie artist can tell you that. Aside from seling t-shirts to audience members who are looking for something comfy to wear around the house on the weekends, why would anyone buy merch from an unknown artist?
The sad reality is that merch is, by and large, another "what if" proposition promoted by indie marketing gurus based on a select few succes stories. Just like licencing, corporate bulk CDs sales, the 1000 true fans theory, etc. - merch is not really a factor for the average indie grunt out there trying to make a living. It's nice to have it on your table but it ties up a lot of revenue, is a pain in the butt to drag to venues and ends up junking up your parents' garage in the end...
Solveig Wednesday, February 01, 2012
So here's the question: who and how are indie musicians making any money at all? If it's not in branded merch - where is it? Gigging? Hmmmm, I think not. Vinyl? Not much. Downloads? nope. TV and Film (a la TAXI or CDBaby's new service?) Not sure yet, I'll call you when I place a song for $10K.
I agree, the brand sells the merch, not the other way around. That is the old model of marketing, not the new one. Today, if you are making money on merch, it's because you have already built yoru brand (a la Gaga or Kim Kardasihian). In the old model, you used traditional push marketing to saturate eyeballs with your brand via T-shirts, paper advertising. Merch was advertising, a loss-leader. Now the marketing buzz is that merch is a replacement revenue stream for lost licensing revenue. But no one is making any money doing it.
The only people making money, as far as I can tell, are music marketers and Guitar Center. And the latter spends a lot promoting their brand.
Visitor Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Merchandise is mostly tacky and cheesy. It's the music that should be valued, not some ugly t-shirt that falls apart after two washings.
I don't buy musician merchandise, and I don't sell it. I do gladly pay for the music though, sometimes several times over (in digital and vinyl format, for example). It's the music that enriches my life, and that's what is therefore of value. Not the "brand", whatever that is.
- Versus
@TheDailySerge Monday, February 06, 2012
SURPRISE! bands aren't making much from their brands.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us