Does The "Pay-What-You-Want" Paradigm Work?

Robert Smith of The Cure recently had choice words regarding the "Radiohead" model of user-determined value of media. Just to remind you, Radiohead released an album in 2007, "In Rainbows," that was available for a theoretically "free" download; it was up to the user's discretion how much money they would pay/donate for the music. It was estimated that 62 percent of users downloaded "In Rainbows" without paying one cent, something Radiohead denied. Nevertheless, after three months the band abruptly ended the experiment, returning to a more traditional sales model.


Smith has said that he "disagreed violently" with Radiohead for allowing the fans to only pay as much as they wanted for "In Rainbows."

"You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense.

If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan, it can't work."

Reaction to Smith's words on the website Stereogum was largely negative, accusing the singer of being out-of-touch, greedy, and irrelevant. Smith then issued this statement, entitled "Free Music For All," on his official site:

"SO IT SEEMS A FEW PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS (YOU HAVE TOLOVE THEM!) OUT THERE DISAGREE WITH MY "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIRART" MUSING

AND THINK ITS OK FOR ART - MUSIC IN PARTICULAR - TO BEMADE AVAILABLE FREE FOR ALL...

NO I AM NOT CONFUSING 'ARTISTIC VALUE' WITH'COMMERCIAL VALUE'

MERELY QUESTIONING THE DUMB ACCEPTANCE OF THE 'FREEART IS THE 'NEW' PARADIGM - THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS' MANTRA

IN THE WAY OF OUR BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD

THESE IDIOT CRITICS HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO TURN MYGENERAL POINT - A POINT I MADE USING RADIOHEAD'S 'IN RAINBOWS: PAY WHAT YOUWANT' MARKETING RUSE AS IT IS THE MOST WIDELY KNOWN EXAMPLE - INTO A MOCK SHOCKHORROR "HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION THE FAMOUSLY INDEPENDENT ANDANTI-CAPITALIST RADIOHEAD, THEY SELL MORE 'PRODUCT' THAN THE CURE SO THEIRSTRATEGY OBVIOUSLY 'WORKED' (HUH?!!)... AND ANYWAY, ROBERT SMITH IS WAY TOO OLDTO COMMENT ON CONTEMPORARY CULTURE" MOMENT...

MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL

NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'

BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...

INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

ALL WELL AND GOOD...

HOWEVER

IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM

THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?"

What do you think? Do you think the "pay-what-you-want" model works for music? And obviously, the next question is -- would it work for comic books as a whole?

Is $2.99 Too Much To Pay For A Comic Book?

Been reading the ongoing digital comics piracy debate, and a thought popped into my mind.

Is $2.99 (or, most often, more) too much to pay for a print single-issue comic book?

It certainly isn't if the material is good.

But I've come to the conclusion that if the material is sub-par -- or merely mediocre -- it's too much money to expect the public to pay.

Let me reiterate:

In the "good old days," I used to wait on baited breath for the next issue of Morrison's "Doom Patrol" or "Love and Rockets." I mean, I would literally count down the thirty days for my fave comics to come out.

But If I buy, say, 6 comics @ $2.99 today at my comic shop, and 4 of them are mediocre reads, that means I just spent around $12.00 on mediocrity that won't even look nice on my bookshelf.

I think this is the real issue that drives the comic book pirates.

Hey, I realize not every book is gonna hit them out of the park. But I classify comics in three catagories:

1. REALLY GOOD BOOKS. Ellis's Thunderbolts, Morrison's All-Star Superman, etc.

2. "Okay" books I have a sentimental attachment to. For me that would include Iron Man & Ms. Marvel, of which I do not miss an issue.

3. Mediocre comics. They're efficient enough time-wasters, but eminently forgettable.

4. Crap.

$2.99 is too much for mediocre & crap. It's just too much money. For $9 I can go buy any number of classic movies on DVD. For $14 I can get a trade paperback that, worst-case scenario, at least can sit nice on my bookshelf or make a viable product to resell on eBay.

But what can I do with a $2.99 floppy that has sucky quality? Nobody wants to buy it from me. I usually won't give it to my friends, because I'm not in the habit of giving friends crap. Besides, they all have too many comics, anyway.

Such "filler" comics are best offered for free or a small subscription fee online. They are good comics to host ads on. They are good product to tout "exclusive comics free on this site!"

Of course, one person's crap is another person's gold. But if we had to analyze it, if we put it to a survey, certain books are going to be pointed out by the majority as either "mediocre" or "crap."

Now the whole "direct to video/DVD" movie phenomenon comes to mind. These films are not good enough to be in the movie theaters, but find a home in affordably-priced copies or Netflix.

Maybe the same principle should apply to comics. Maybe publishers should have a high bar as to the quality of all their print "floppy" books, and then just publish the rest online.

As for the argument made by many digital comics pirates that "sampling" comics for free online will actually lead to more purchases -- we all know this is not the case for mediocre & crap books. The glaring crapocity of a book becomes all the more noticeable when you downloaded an entire week's worth of books and are flipping through files.

Think about it -- you just got 30+ comics for free in one download. The choice is already overwhelming. A title that you might have, one-upon-a-time, actually purchased to "sample" is now ignored by you after glancing at a couple of digital pages.

Do you know how many comics I have purchased that I've regretted? How is this an efficient use of my time? Can I afford to keep "sampling?" Can I afford to buy 4 books a week that are just "okay?"

This is not meant to be a knock on the comics industry. I'm just literally looking at my wallet in preparation for the day's purchases and asking some questions.

Archie Sez: Downloading Is Evil

Archie Sez: Downloading Is Evil

BoingBoing laments the brainwashing of Archie by the RIAA in "Archie"#577's "Record Breaker."

Here is the comic's official story description:

"Written by Craig Boldman, Art by Stan Goldberg "Record Breaker": Instead of pressing CD's, the Archies decide to sell downloadable files of their songs on the Internet… which doesn't translate to much profit once the 3 purchased files are shared over and over again!"

Could the deal between the band "The Veronicas" and the comic book company have anything to do with it?

Well, I like BoingBoing and all, but their high-horse about how unauthorized downloads of various media should be legal is getting a little tired. Sure, getting every track that "Sparks" ever recorded for free and burning it on DVD for your strange 80s-obsessed cousin is really cool -- but it's stealing. Yeah, every other person does it -- but it's stealing.

Illegal downloads f**ked the music industry seriously, and while I'm all for sticking it to the "man," it all does end up negatively impacting the artists and their art -- ESPECIALLY SMALLER "NICHE" MUSICIANS!

Why? Your big "pop music" acts can absorb the hurting from the reduced revenue rather well by making it up on mega-concerts, merchandise, endorsement deals, etc.

But "Folk Music Dan" with the small but loyal following needs every dime he can get from his CDs. If the music is downloaded for free -- yeah, it might increase his exposure, but that's literally money out of his pocket.

And, with the rise of do-it-yourself recording technology and the Internet, there are now like 100,000 "Folk Music Dans" all competing for your money -- money which you are not spending because you are Mininova-ing their albums.

Now let's apply this to comic books.

The comic book industry cannot survive illegal downloading on the scale of what's happening with music.

The only reason such downloading hasn't reached those levels with comics is because the apps involved are not as user-friendly as MP3s. But once those "comic book reader" applications are perfected (and easily transferable to mobile devices), the industry is going to get screwed.

I don't download comics, though I am sorely tempted to. The lousy "Supergirl" comic I kvetch about? I actually buy that damn thing.

I don't download for several reasons. Firstly, downloads on that scale usually end up infecting my computer with the technological equivalent of syphilis. Second, when I get all the comics that have come out on any given week for free, it inevitably reduces their specialness in my mind. It's like when I got weekly DC comps -- meh. Boring.

But the third reason I don't download is because I know intuitively that it will kill this industry. No, scratch that. It won't kill the industry. It will turn it into a place where "mass appeal," mainstream books like Superman & Spiderman are the only viable things to print, and where the "Folk Singer Dans" of the comic world are forced to see their art as just a hobby because there is no way they can make money off of it.

Hey, I'm not all self-righteous about "DOWNLOADERS ARE EVIL" and calling for them to be arrested and whatever. Do whatever you want. But don't publicly whine about how not being allowed to download the latest "White Stripes" album infringes on your rights. Use a little bit of humbleness, f'God's sake.