We've talked in the past about the idea of musicians doing
"house concerts" or in-home shows (all the way back to
2003), highlighting how folks like Jill Sobule successfully offered up the opportunity for fans to pay $5,000 to have her perform at their home. She had a handful of fans take her up on this offer and said they went great. When Amanda Palmer released her latest album a few weeks back, she included a similar offer. $5,000 for an in-home concert during her Australian tour. Very quickly (and, it appeared, mostly via Twitter), one superfan took up a collection to see if they could raise the $5,000 to have Amanda come play at a barbecue at her place. And, it worked. Amanda has now written a really great blog post
describing the overall experience, which apparently went amazingly well:
it was a fantastic fucking night. i feel so incredibly lucky to always work on the assumption that my audience will be made up of people that are interesting, people i want to actually talk to.
i borrowed a piano from a girl who came to the gig (and she wound up playing after me, while i signed and chatted to folks), took requests, drank beers, told stories, listened, hugged. kim came along and played some of her songs, and we sang together, and we....felt right at home. i was given some incredible gifts. i feel like collapsing sometimes under all the awesome that comes into my life. thank you to all you who were there. that was special.
But what's most interesting is that Amanda goes on to discuss how she was worried about doing this -- especially for the first time. Her main concern was that it would be
awkward to show up and play for money -- even though she does that all the time when playing concerts. But there's something different -- something more intimate -- about playing in someone's home, and the idea that they paid for you to be there is definitely a different feeling. Amanda narrows it down to a key point: it sometimes feels awkward to deal with money directly. Money is often a taboo subject, where people like to skirt around actual dollars. I see this all the time in business meetings, when discussing various deals. Everyone always like to dance around the key issue -- the money -- for as long as possible, and always seems to hope it's the "other guy" who brings it up or (even better!) some third party steps in and handles the transactional part.
In fact, that's part of the reason why middlemen exist in so many areas. Asking for money is
difficult, and asking for and handling the money is a function that many people just feel more comfortable handing off to a third party. Yet, after all of this, when the deal does go through, and you realize that it's a
direct connection between two people who are happy about how each came out of the transaction, people begin to realize it shouldn't be awkward at all. Amanda makes this point as well:
there's something really fucking satisfying about the money not going to everybody inbetween...the promotors, the ticketmasters...and not having those inbetween people involved AT YOUR GIG. there's something that kills the vibe about playing in a venue and knowing that everybody who works there doesn't give a shit about you, your music, or your fans.
Of course, this is the crux of what a market economy is supposed to actually be about: transactions where all parties are better off post transaction, and happier for it. That may sound crass and businesslike, but if everyone's better off, isn't that a good thing?
That's not to say that all middlemen should be done away with. Not at all. There are plenty of great and important roles for middlemen in specific scenarios. Middlemen can do all sorts of useful and compelling things to enable content creators to go on and do much more in the world. But, some middlemen are really just there to make it so that the "awkwardness" of money exchanges goes away, and those middlemen might not be that useful in the long run. One of the key things we've seen over the past few years is that people
love to support artists they like
directly. In fact, they seem
more willing to spend if they think or know that the money actually has a half decent chance of ending up in the artist's wallet. As Amanda notes, more people are starting to realize this, and learn to get over the awkwardness of asking for money, and the awkwardness of removing a middleman who isn't really adding value, but simply obscuring the transaction.
Permalink |
Comments |
Email This Story 
Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/00542712888/awkwardness-cutting-out-middleman.shtml
COMCAST COMMSCOPE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS COMPAL ELECTRONICS
So, now that the Daily is out there, who is it for? Who will read this bold new experiment in journalism and why? First, let me state that we just saw a sea change in journalism as its practiced online. Murdoch's deep pockets have pushed through something publishers have tried to do for about two years now - namely create a compelling, interactive news source for tablet users. If I may be so bold, I would equate the efforts by Popular Science and titles that previously attempted to move to the iPad as the 1.0, pre-Internet CD-ROM days. The content was static and the old methods - commissioned text, carefully laid out on a page, released monthly at a premium price - are now over. That said, I wouldn't wager the Daily will be the best or most popular of these new "streaming" newspapers but I do suspect that for the first few years it will be the most popular. 
After today's 
2010 was a transformative year for 
I have a thing for money-making, simple solutions to obvious problems, and 