28 Comments

1. Watch the NARM interview with Rogers, and then watch this video with the label people:
   http://vimeo.com/5267249
   Notice how the label folks seem more focused on “collecting” and “deluxe editions” and discount concepts like music on demand? They still want to sell you something, a product, a good, a ball bearing, a ham and cheese sandwich. They’re not at all interested in providing consumers with the experience they want, nor or they interested in helping the artists better serve their fans. The undercurrent of “control, control, control” is obvious.
   The record label of the future will be a lot more like Topspin – they’ll provide tools to help the artist engage with fans and be purely creative, and they’ll get out of the way. They’ll take a piece of transactions, they’ll charge reasonable service fees for the moving parts, they’ll participate more heavily in the upside if they invest on the front end.
   None of the people on the label panel come off as insightful, or creative, or even aware of what the emerging opportunities in music are. This is what happens when you purge labels of creative people and stock up on MBAs stiffs.
   I don’t think Topspin is any kind of savior to the music business, but it’s obvious that what Rogers is pushing is far more relevant to artists and fans than anything the people on the label panel are saying or doing. It’s so depressing to see how lame the digital people are on the label side – they’re making all of the money, have all of the power, and use it only to stifle new ideas. It’s worse now than ever.

2. Are we supposed to believe that a sales widget with data capture is somehow ground-breaking? Granted, this is a great tool for indie musicians, but what TopSpin doesn’t talk much about is the high distribution fee they take when they don’t handle any physical fulfillment like Music Today et al, and there are plenty of other great solutions out there to sell your music digitally and direct market to fans. The data they capture isn’t leaps and bounds beyond what other great e-commerce innovators are doing, and as anyone who has dealt with widgets before knows, there is no viral magic that happens unless the act is great and is doing a decidedly low-tech activity of personally being in front of their fans performing their art. The problem I have with TopSpin supporters is that they’re heralding this company as the future when it’s really just following best practices other industries are familiar with. Until the music business catches up with others in its knowledge of how to leverage technology, companies like this can come in and sell a bill of goods to a lot of people.

3. Amen to the previous post.

4. YEAH – seriously – Topspin needs to be clear right up front about what their piece on the action is. The fact that they aren’t smells fishy to me.

5. The % they take is hugely important – I remember being totally shocked when I called Snocap who wanted some crazy number (like half of every download) as a distribution fee. I asked their Biz Dev people – how do you rationalize a distribution fee that high, when even huge companies like Sony etc charge less than 15%? They just said “we have to make money”.
   Early on in my music business career, I was talking about royalty percentages with a business affairs guy. I said so what’s a typical % that a new artist gets? He laughed and said, the percentage itself is not what’s important. The only important question is that – a % of WHAT?
   If all the various fees and deductions are taken off the top, a hard negotiated 20% royalty could actually be more like 3% of the actual wholesale price. Or on certain goods, an artist might not even be entitled to a royalty (a lot of artists were paid zero for downloads because of contractual exclusions, I’m pretty sure Radiohead was mentioned as being one of them.)
   I agree that is is highly suspicious that Topspin has not released a standard agreement, or announced fees. Yet they’re giving classes in how to market using Topspin. At best it’s hype and at the worst, it’s hypocrisy. Part of Topspin’s pitch is transparency with the artist, and their commercial terms have so far been anything but transparent.
   Amazing when you consider how Tunecore has a widely used, cost effective, reasonably priced distribution system for unsigned acts, yet there is little excitement about them, no VCs begging them to take cash, and every time their CEO talks, there aren’t 1000 blogs posts written about it.

6. Thanks for the comments, guys! It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one that feels this way when dealing with a company like TopSpin. There is value in their store – I just question how much more value they provide to justify their cut over other solutions. I do feel that their highly-touted marketing system is more hype than substance when there are a lot of free communication and analytical tools available for those with enough creativity to leverage them. And as we all know, over-hyped flashes in the pan have been what’s hurting this business for a long time.

7. Topspin is starting to sound more like Sonicbids everyday – too much self hype. Gathering and wise use of data is a given – nothing new.
   Tunecore – I agree, the only real serious entity for Indies is Tunecore. They are so underated. The major label my band was in negotiation with had never heard of it.
   I love receiving those “You’ve got royalties” emails. They will have some very new exciting announcements soon. Keep posted.
   VERY SATISFIED USER$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and happy indie.

8. …chiming time…..let’s all be really calm for a moment…..listen up….it’s the quality of the music relative to the place and time in which it is first experienced…the “psychology of the ear” is how it was best described to me by a really skinny keyboard player for a really big band in the eighties….if you never heard “it” before….the quality of the sound is as good as it has ever been…as soon as you add a little effect to it…it sounds different…maybe even better….i.e. the bass button….and then you have a broader, “better” experience of the music….it’s not always “better” it’s just different and. then again maybe better….Topsin has added a lot of “effect” to it’s marketing message for some time now…mostly relating to drinking gatherings…but the experience has not really gotten any broader….same stuff all the time……with all that money and time and experience you would think they could find someone to be a more eloquent spokesperson with a knack for the plain old English language. Rant…of course….reason….I’m sick and tired of hearing about the “newest, latest, greatest…” of anything…again…..the music….make the best music you know how to make….and like Seth says…”tell a friend” and take it from there…..GOOD LUCK Y’ALL….OH AND GOOD MORNING IF I FORGOT TO MAKE MENTION…..Mitchell

9. Hi everyone. Thanks for the comments.
   I agree we’ve been a bit over-hyped, actually. We’re just a young company, building software, working with artists, trying to figure out what marketing and distribution looks like in the future, just like y’all. But we’re also a good group of music-loving people who have been very approachable — if you have issues with how we’re pricing, let us know. There’s nothing secretive or shady going on here.
   The fact of the matter is, we *are* trying to build a business. Our plan is to be around a long time, to build a working business that provides value to artists and builds value in exchange. We definitely aren’t trying to sell $1.00 for $0.75 and make it up in volume like many Internet (and specifically music Internet) companies before us. Our hope is that artists will be able to appreciate this, what we provide will be of real value, and folks will be happy to pay something fair for it.
   We aren’t public about our pricing yet because to be honest we don’t know what our pricing will be long-term. I just had lunch with Rossanna in our office on Friday, and pricing was the topic of discussion as Rossanna is doing a ton of research right now on the various pricing options right now. If you’d like to help us sort this out, please reach out to me (I’m just ian at topspinmedia.com) and I’ll put you in touch with Rossanna and she can take your comments into consideration as we figure out what pricing should be. Remember that we *are* going to try to find something which we believe will keep the company alive, but we’re also trying to sort something good for artists, of course. It’s a tricky balance. Also, we aren’t looking to have 150,000 artists on our platform not making any money. Our pricing strategy is going to be oriented at gathering thousands of professional musicians (not tens or hundreds of thousands of hobbyists) and I think you’re right, there will be a lot of tools better suited for people looking to spend nothing and gross less than $5000/year. And that’s just fine. The sky is big, there’s room for lots of different companies focused in different places.
   As far as our pricing right now, we’ve been taking a rev share of 20% of retail which decreases as volume increases. There are pass-through costs which we don’t mark up at all (in the spirit of full transparency). Please feel free to talk to the managers we’ve worked with and see how they feel about the value we offer in return for this. Remember, this is a % OF RETAIL which is much less than what iTunes takes (and your distributor fee is a % beyond this), and I don’t think there’s any question our marketing tools are far and above any “marketing” that iTunes offers the average artist. Also, this is only on transactions which run through Topspin, and I also don’t think there’s any question a lot of the marketing efforts done with Topspin software benefit sales on iTunes, at physical retail, etc, sales for which we receive 0%. But that’s ok with us. That all comes out in the wash.
   For the most part the managers we work with seem extremely excited to build out this part of their business, the part where they have a direct and meaningful connection to their fan base, are happy with the tools, and find our fees to be very fair. We’re only making money when they make money, and if you consider direct-to-fan as a % of overall gross, and we are taking 20% or less than that, we are priced very competitively relative to other solutions out there. I think there’s recognition that companies who don’t charge enough won’t be around in five years and professionals generally aren’t interested in building a strategic part of their business on companies which might evaporate next year.
   You refer to an issue with physical retail and accounting for cost of goods, which is an important point. We’re working on this, and our partnership with Kufala is a direct attempt to address this pricing problem. We have a number of ideas on how to mitigate the “double dip” problem of fulfillment. We’ll get there. This sort of trickiness is exactly why we aren’t trying to go big yet, we’re trying to start small, work out the intricacies, and come to market with something that’s actually practical for many many artists.
   Fwiw, we’re Tunecore fans, too, and refer artists to them all the time. Peter Wells is on my panel Tuesday morning in NYC (along with Bruce from Hypebot): http://newmusicseminar.biz/players.php
   I hope this is helpful. Thanks for the comments and interest, even if they’re skeptical. 😉
   ian

10. Hmmm. As a very satisfied Topspin client, I’m a little bemused by the skepticism. By all means, be suspicious of hype, and press for transparency. But don’t ignore facts.
    Here are 4 reasons I love Topspin, and think they’ll be around for a good long time:
    1) They’re not trying to do everything. They’re focused on one clearly-defined part of the market (direct to fan marketing) that digital distribution and social networking have now made more important (and, potentially, lucrative) than they were previously. Someone above implies Topspin is selling people “a bill of goods” because their technology isn’t “groundbreaking” and is “just following best practices other industries are familiar with.” But as a musician who’s spent the last 8 years cobbling together previous tools to market and sell direct to fans, I can vouch that Topspin’s focused approach does indeed feel groundbreaking, because they’re music industry experts building widgets for music-specific needs. Other people have tried before, but Topspin does it better, I think, because they’ve got the right balance of music industry expertise and technological expertise. IODA, in a different part of the market, is the only other company I can think of that gets both parts of the equation so right.
    2)They’re not trying to serve everyone. They’re not after every artist in the world, and they’re not after every fan of the artists they do work with – again, they’re focused on the people they can serve most effectively.
    3)They know what they don’t know. When Ian first told me the fee started at 20% and dropped with volume, I told him that sounded high, but I was still going to sign up because I took it for granted that it would drop as other competitors figured out how to address this same market as effectively. That led to a conversation about what might happen over the next 5 years that convinced me Ian’s a solid CEO because he not only had a good grasp of the possibilities, he also peppered the conversation with more ifs and buts than most CEOs I deal with.
    4)They’re transparent. I see Ian’s responded above, which gives you a pretty good sense of how they operate. I’ll just add that their license agreement is written in plain English, which sounds like a little thing, but to my mind is a really big deal, partly because I know how difficult it is to manage something like that in a binding legal document, but mostly because it underscores they recognize who they’re working for, and whose buy-in they need for their venture to succeed: artists. It’s a pretty profound measure of respect, and a good signal where their heads and hearts are at.

11. Ian, you know that I love you as a man, businessman and visionary (often can I be heard to describe you as the future of the music industry), but I’d say that TopSpin does have something of a minor identity issue at this point. To the average musician, fan and music biz follower – i.e. pretty much your key constituency – TopSpin, to the extent that it’s popped up on their radar at all, might represent something set nominally apart from the existing hegemony, but by frontlining your (albeit amazing) early achievements with fanboy giants like Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Arcade Fire you risk coming across as a table that’s no easier to get a seat at – and, dare I say it, as something of a repository for established superstars disenchanted with or frozen out by the major label system.
    And beyond that your own indefatigable enthusiasm to work with artists still within that system on a promotional level has (imo) maybe hindered TopSpin from establishing a distinct enough identity within the corridors of waning but still prevalent corporate music power, and has (again imho) allowed the old guard to use their marketing $$ to co-opt your daring spirit of breakaway independence, as they always have done and will always attempt to do. It’s just econo-cultural Darwinism in action – but it strikes me that you need to put yourself above it if you want to avoid looking like Orwell’s more-equal pigs as the revolution you’re spearheading unfolds.
    If, as I understand it, the true goal of TopSpin is to mass market and produce a record company in a box, to emancipate artists from the traditional label paradigm in the same way that ProTools freed musicians from expensive, prohibitive studio costs, to put the means of production right into their hands, then that is a genius idea, a huge, game-changing proposition. But I don’t think it’s the message that’s coming across at the moment. The website has indeed been too arcane and enigmatic – enough to generate a sense of excitement that something new and interesting is going on, but also a touch exclusionary and obscure. It feels like you have all the small details right but the big message isn’t getting over. Maybe you don’t want it to come over yet. I know for sure you have a plan… But a record company in a box, that’s a hell of an idea – and that’s the idea that people should be talking about, whether it’s David Byrne championing that simple message in the blogosphere, or probably more importantly at this point Joe Blow telling his other friend with a band that he saw some real results with it – sold some music, sold some merch, focused support for a show, got some positive fan feedback – and that anyone who’s still looking for an old-fashioned record deal is crazy.
    Now I don’t even know if the software is available to Joe and his mate yet. I’m sure I could find out from the site or even from your response above, but if I’m too lazy and self-involved to do so (when it’s definitely my business to know) then I’m fairly certain Joe doesn’t know either and therefore isn’t going to be in a position to pony up the money to start to free you from looking to the majors for short term cashflow.
    You can correct me/beat me to death to the extent that I’m wrong about any of the above, but the fact that I’m so ignorant is probably my whole point. In short, I’m waiting to overhear 2 dudes talking about TopSpin in some divey coffee shop and then I’ll know that the revolution is truly underway… Love, LB

12. I’ve been following Topspin, because of the artists/bands they are working with, and because I know people in one of the VC firms which has invested in the company.
    I’m a true skeptic of “new music business models.” By that I mean I doubt that most of the DIY ideas being touted as new music business models will benefit most bands/artists. Relatively few bands/artists will make enough money to quit their day jobs. In many ways it is tougher to make a living in music now than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago because there are so many more bands/artists competing for fans’ attention and money.
    But I have been impressed with Topspin. Not because I think they have the ultimate solution. But because (1) they haven’t suggested they are right for every band/artist and (2) they have been sharing info on what has worked and hasn’t worked for them. True, they haven’t told us what every client has made (presumably they aren’t at liberty to do that). But they have provided more info than most of the companies/bands claiming success in today’s music market.
    To the extent possible, I want to see business plans for every band that is talking about how well they are doing in today’s market. How much are they making? How much are they spending? What is their sales conversion rate? And so on.
    I feel like Topspin is more likely to provide this info than other sources I have looked at.

13. The average musician doesn’t have the work ethic or talent to make money off their music.
    If we’re going stricly off numbers here.
    The average musicians gets on myspace, does local shows, and uses tunecore. Ian was pretty clear about what his target market was — and that’s NOT the average musician, man.

14. I think most of the complaints about topspin come from people who just plain aren’t professionals and don’t know much about the business end. It’s really not Topspins’ job — or anyone else’s — to explain the music business to you. If there’s context you don’t have, do research.
    There’s 0% mystery about what topspin does, how they do it, and who they’re working with. The questions people have should be directed at google, for the most part.
    Awesome thread, though. This is what makes Hypebot dope.

15. In addition to being great for artists, the TopSpin platform is a music marketers dream.
    Someone commented “there are a lot of free communication and analytical tools available for those with enough creativity to leverage them.”
    Although free tools do exist, fragmentation is simply not efficient for any artist or business. Not to mention, free tools might evaporate next year like Ian mentioned. With the exception, of course, of several Google products.
    I was fortunate to get a demo of the platform which simply blew me away. Some of the interface is not perfected yet, but who cares, it’s the aggregated data which is incredibly valuable and interesting to look at. If you are a business or serious musician building a sustainable career, the TopSpin platform will allow you to market your music strategically by providing you with a centralized widget & email tool-set and music focused analytics. This will help you track music promotion effectiveness and help derive future marketing ideas and business decisions.
    I’m not quite sure what more you can ask for. Looking forward to the future.
    Harold

16. But the average musician has shown that he has the wherewithal to shell out a few hundred bucks to buy ProTools, in however an ill-starred attempt to further his music making ambitions, turning ProTools into an industry standard, multi-billion (I presume) dollar enterprise and generally still dominant digital recording platform (I use Logic so don’t look at me…).
    My point is that if (as I feel like Ian has at one time or another explained it to me and as Peter Gotcher’s big visual presence within the company still suggests) the ultimate goal of TopSpin is to propagate a brand of signature software that effectively replaces the record company model in the same way that ProTools replaced the physical recording studio, then that message isn’t really close to getting across at this point amid all the other super cool news about B-Boys reissues and new Byrne/Eno records.
    Maybe that isn’t even the plan any more… I’m just joining in the conversation at ICR’s invitation…

17. A large part of my skepticism comes from TopSpin charging a distribution fee around 20% and not providing any physical fulfillment. These are extra costs that other providers handle, whereas in TopSpin’s case that cost now falls upon the artist. I understand that the company is working out the issues, but the fee should lower until they’re providing the service that would justify it. Now, when they talk to artists, they are totally transparent about this. The transparency here isn’t the issue, it’s just not worth it.
    Talking about working with only a select group of artists is a good marketing strategy to start (turn a bunch of heads by getting some big names on board), but in the long run, that doesn’t jive with the economics of what they’ve created and what’s going to work online. This strategy is limiting their client base and making it a necessity to keep the cut high. When a robust, digital system makes it so the marginal cost of adding another client very close to 0, then you can make money by getting your fees in line (lower) and dropping the exclusivity. We have an industry that’s obsessed with exclusivity, and that mindset is part of what’s hurting us.
    The transparency issue really comes up in the marketing area. I understand that TopSpin isn’t offering “artist services” any longer (and a lot of people would ask what exactly those services were in the first place, as what was discussed what very vague). But more importantly, what are the features in the data capture and analysis system that separate TopSpin from everyone else in the tech world? Tracking widget placements and interactions is a standardized feature now. Capturing demographic info upon a sale, allowing for analysis, is also standard. I recognize it’s an advantage to have this info directly, as large digital stores don’t make this info readily available to the artist. But this capability didn’t break any new ground. Making it possible to direct market to email addresses captured and allowing CRM is also great, but is standardized. As I said before, these are now best practices in e-commerce. And it is possible to make these things happen if you have an understanding of them and use a mix of the free and low-cost tools available online.
    My issue isn’t so much with TopSpin as a company per se (I just don’t think they’re the best solution), but more with our industry’s persistent lack of understanding of how to do business online that has put us in such a chaotic situation in the first place. We as a business align ourselves with and tout certain things that either put us at odds with the spirit of the online community (and thus demonize us to the consumer), or show that we are very out of touch with what’s going on (I feel this is the case with TopSpin).
    My “bill of goods” comment was a little harsh – the company isn’t intentionally trying to rip anyone off. I do think their pricing and marketing strategies at this point keep them from being a great option. But the hype that’s happening around them, coupled with a lack of transparency about what their marketing services entail (demos of their back end on their website would help greatly) are symptoms of a music industry that widely lacks the knowledge needed to evaluate companies like TopSpin. In other words, is it any wonder why most of the innovation happening in online content isn’t coming from record labels and music management companies? Why Google, Apple et al are running circles around us and are actually loved by consumers?

18. The points that you have brought up are some that I am touching upon in a series of blog posts I am writing.
    As bands/artists move more into hard good sales, their business models will begin to mirror non-music companies selling similar products. There are a lot of concepts to explore as bands hope to generate income from fashion, branded products, limited edition collectibles, etc.
    http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/07/selling-stuff-part-one-direct-to-fan.html

19. Paying Topspin a premium over the free services might be justifiable for these reasons:
    1. The company amasses info from various successful bands and shares proprietary best-practices with its clients.
    2. It takes on a role as consultant to guide its clients based on the above data.
    3. It positions itself as a source of quality products, which encourages fans to purchase from Topspin clients.
    When you stop to think about it, Topspin could serve as a modern label in that it (1) limits the number of clients it serves, (2) brings to them a package of services exceeding what is available from other companies for free, and (3) serves as a filter for fans.
    If Topspin can make a case that using its tools results in a higher rate of sales than what is offered by other companies, then it can justify the fees it charges.
    Or if it can show that its tools are so much more efficient than what is available elsewhere (which seems to be what satisfied clients are currently saying), then its services can command a premium.
    This gets back to the heart of the free-versus-premium discussions going on everywhere. Mass marketing (where you give it all away for free in order to have the biggest user base) is not the only model. Serving a smaller market, for a fee, can sometimes be the better route if you want to set yourself apart.

20. Suzanne – read a couple of your blog posts, and I agree with you! There is a ton of direct marketing experience that the music business needs to catch up on instead of relying on controlling marketing/sales channels and attempting saturation (read interruption) of mass markets.
    It’s about building up meaningful relationships with consumers and truly understanding their behavior by mining meaningful data and listening to them (this is how companies like Apple are able to innovate and bring products/services to markets that people didn’t even know they wanted – by understanding their consumers to a point that they can begin leading them into new territory).
    In regards to TopSpin, the quote you used highlights my complaints. Their data collection services help savvy marketers learn about their fans, but what are they really doing in “demand generation”? Their viral front is also dubious, as it insinuates that somehow their widget (like every other) is going to simply spread and create demand without much effort. Wasn’t that essentially the promise of BurnLounge?

21. When you hire an advertisement or promo firm, do you expect them to ship your orders for you, too? Your skepticism doesn’t make sense.

22. An advertisement or promo firm isn’t asking for a 20% distribution fee. TopSpin is, and they’re not providing what others would for that fee. They’re not doing anything above someone like MusicToday would do. Again, my question is why choose them when there are companies that do what they do just as well (or better when there are people that actually do fulfill)? The fee should be lower, period. Or their “marketing services” should be a nominal monthly fee. They can run their business however they want, but that doesn’t mean they are above criticism in a competitive environment.

23. Cool thread, with fascinating comments for everyone.

    I think Suzanne’s above post touches on a very important aspect of the Topspin offering: The filtering.

    Although to be fair, I don’t think it has much of an impact with the actual fans at this stage. It’s more of a calling card within the industry.

    There are hundreds of online music marketing/sales/promotion services out there who are open to everyone, which is great. Topspin isn’t one of them, and they are getting a lot of press out of it for themselves, and just as importantly, for the artists they are working with.

    Just as signing to Domino Records instead of “insert weird name” records helps you cut through the noise, the same thing can be said, to a certain extent, of working with Topspin.

    Now this may not solve EVERYONE’S issues, but in an age of endless possibilities, there’s definitely space for some new business models with somewhat of an “A&R” take (even though that might not be the best way to brand it :-)).

    As Ian.c pointed out, there’s enough room for everyone, especially if they’re offering different things, and catering to different needs.

24. Yes, I think saying you’re a Topspin artist can, or might, mean something. There are several unsigned, but up-and-coming, artists who I have thought about for Topspin, and that’s one of the big reasons Topspin appeals to me. If you make the “cut” you’re in some elite company.
    Is it worth 20% to be able to belong to that group? Maybe, yes.
    Like I said, it could be the new “major label.”

25. That’s where I think the illusion is. If TopSpin isn’t doing much to actually create demand as they claim (and I don’t think they do), what’s the point of being on their roster? They exclusivity serves them more than it does the artists. Artists need to recognize they need to align themselves with doers instead of talkers if they hope to make progress in their careers. The A&R take helps position TopSpin as a company, but does it help an artist? Does it create more fans? Does it sell more music? I doubt it does.

26. You are raising legitimate questions. I’ve already got them on my list of points of comparisons between Topspin and other services operating in the same realm. (I haven’t developed such a list yet, but it would be a good thing to have.)
    And I think it is a good idea to be skeptical of all the new music business plans being offered these days. I certainly am. The fact that major labels are declining does not mean what has replaced them is necessarily going to help artists make a living at this.
    I don’t think Topspin is right for most bands anyway, so that means they aren’t going to be directly competing with other services.
    Do they or will they have something to offer to a few bands? Perhaps. I outlined what I thought they would need to do to distinguish themselves. People will pay a premium if the results justify it. For that matter, people will pay a premium to have access to an elite group of people involved in various aspects of music. If Topspin throws a party and all its clients are there, will people pay for that? Of course.
    People have gotten so used to the “free” model that they are overlooking what people will pay for.

27. The fact that they’re not providing other services means you’re not paying the 20% fee for any sales through those, so I really don’t understand this facet of your objections.
    Justifying the fee is simple math: for every $10,000 I’d make selling music directly to fans on my own, do I think using Topspin will help me earn $12,001 instead?
    For me, the answer’s absolutely yes, because I’ve done it both ways, and even if the sales turned out to be the same (which they haven’t), I’m saving at least as much as I’m spending in labor. I’m not familiar with MusicToday’s fee structure, but I don’t want or need half of what they’re offering — and I think artists are better served NOT concentrating so many different aspects of the business in one company (particularly LiveNation).
    I politely disagree with the people on the thread who are suggesting Topspin might be the label of the future. I don’t think there’s a 1 to 1 replacement for yesterday’s labels, which is why I admire Topspin so much: they’re not trying to replace the whole shebang, simply focusing on a newly important piece of the puzzle.
    I use Topspin for direct-to-fan (at 20%), IODA for digital subscription and retail services (at 15%), recently did a p&d deal with a label for physical retail (they get 25%). All of it is more effective, and more fair, than my last major label deal, which worked out to something like 99.9999999%, or my last indie label deal, which was 50%.
    As I said before, I think the 20% Topspin’s charging right now is the ceiling, and will come down. But I’m happy to pay it.

28. It is a big improvement over the label system – I’ll concede to that, certainly! My argument about the other services in response to Justin was to point out that he wasn’t comparing apples to apples. A PR firm doesn’t do fulfillment of course, and therefore isn’t taking a distribution fee. But in regards to distribution, the % is too high when you have other options. And in light of the fact that artist services aren’t being offered (and were questionable in the first place) means that I have an even harder time justifying the %. TopSpin isn’t supplying a level of service that merits that cut. An improvement over the label system isn’t saying much – that was a terrible system for artists! Yes, this is better, but it’s not as good as it could or should be.

Comments are closed.