The Music Data Problem

John Loken’s blog post a couple weeks back got me thinking about a post I’ve been meaning to do for months, but have been too swamped to actually spit out. The post, titled “More Metrics Please,” is, as the title suggests, a plea for metrics on par with the TV business.

Some of this data has been collected in the past, but for various reasons (the biggest of which being the market and channel control by the majors) almost all data points beyond Soundscan and Billboard charts seem to have been ignored. Now, however, there is a perfect storm for music data: more artists than ever before, more listeners than ever before with easier access through more channels than ever before, and more technology for data collection than ever before.

Put simply: music data is both more important and more available than ever before.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, and John is not alone in asking for more data. Companies are springing up left and right to help answer her prayers. Companies like Next Big Sound, BandMetrics, and Music Metric are busy collecting third party data from around the web in single dashboards. Companies like Bandize and Artist Data are helping bands organize their own data. Companies like HypeMachine and Elbo.ws are aggregating marketing/A&R data in the form of blog and Twitter charts. Companies like Songkick and Gigulate help fans track basic concert data and music news, respectively, creating interesting data sets that are sure to surface soon.

The issue isn’t in the data collection or availability, it’s in the connecting, processing, and understanding. Like all data, the points themselves are completely irrelevant without context – a MySpace play doesn’t inherently mean anything, nor does a friend on Facebook. Data can only be understood with relevant ratios.

Connecting the data might be the biggest obstacle at the moment, but I’m hopeful that will change. It’s primarily an issue of a few major players (namely, the retail channel) not having open APIs, or sharing any of the data with the artists – when a fan buys an album on iTunes, that fan data belongs to iTunes and iTunes doesn’t want to part with it.

The other obstacle in connecting the data is the breadth to which music discovery, engagement, and purchasing have spread. You used to get your discovery metrics solely from radio numbers, your engagement metrics from concert tickets, and your purchasing metrics from Soundscan. Now discovery can span blogs, P2P, internet radio, and beyond, engagement can be a play on a blog, a MySpace page, an iPod, or anywhere else, and while record purchases are still largely covered by Soundscan, records are an increasingly small portion of the overall business picture for an artist.

Pulling all that data together is not easy, but I think it can be done as long as those collecting the data are ensuring it’s clean and are willing to make it accessible. Purchases should be easiest, as long as retail channels come around. Last.fm and Twones are handling engagement fairly well (though neither has all the necessary channels covered, by any stretch). Discovery is incredibly tough without having the engagement piece nailed – if you don’t have a view of all a fan’s engagement data, how do you know the first time/place they interacted with an artist?

Progress is coming, but only as a stream of one-dimensional data points. More radical change is needed in order to get to the ratios that are truly relevant and key to making informed business decisions. We need to be able to close the loop on fan data – how fans move down the funnel from discovery to engagement to purchasing. Knowing that you had a spike in MySpace plays around the same time you had a spike in iTunes sales shouldn’t be surprising, and is thus practically worthless (if you didn’t see a spike in sales, it would indicate a strong PR effort but not a high enough quality product for fans to take out their wallets, so the data isn’t totally worthless). Knowing that the majority of the folks who purchased your deluxe edition CD through Amazon first heard your song on Pitchfork and downloaded your EP through P2P is highly valuable.

The technology to make this happen is not expensive, nor particularly difficult to implement, with APIs and OpenID or OAuth. Thanks to the web's ever-expanding processing power, we have far easier access to more data than ever before – it’s no longer reserved for the major corporations who can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to market research firms to run surveys. We just need to have the right technology implemented properly in order to make the data connection easier.

If we can connect all the data collection points properly, the processing isn’t horribly difficult – it’s merely implementing techniques that economists and social scientists have used for ages to slice and dice large data sets. Everyone should be able to be armchair statisticians (as Google Analytics has enabled web hosts to be), the winners will be the ones who have the deepest understanding how to find the most relevant data and take the most appropriate actions as a result.

The understanding is the place where I fear the music business will have the most catching up to do. From my personal experience, data analysis seems to be a new concept to many industry veterans. Many are excited by the prospect of data being available, but few seem to know what to do with it – it serves as little more than eye-candy, another blurry trend chart at a corporate meeting (to be fair, it's not yet easily available in relevant and easy-to-read format without some tech savvy and excel skills). Layer on top of that the fact that people in the music business seem to be among the world’s biggest optimists, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster when it comes to biased or outright incorrect interpretation of data.

The winner of the data wars among the music startups will be the one who can provide the deepest insights, not just the most data. They will preemptively answer both questions of “What does this mean?” and “What should I do?”

The biggest winner will also have the tools to power the “What should I do?” actions. This means marketing, ecommerce, and access to relevant channels. These tools need to empower the artist, but also add value. In the end, I believe success may be measured as some variation of the following equation (would love to hear your feedback on improvements to the equation), and the winners among the startups will be the ones who can prove to consistently impact the quotient the most:

(Engagement + (Investment x Demand Generation Execution))^Quality = $$$

Note that quality is hyperefficient and falls almost entirely on the artist. Even the best data analysis in the world can’t make up for a product that doesn’t appeal. But it can tell you why your product isn’t selling as well as your competitors, and what you can do to make incremental improvements from a business perspective. And that makes data incredibly valuable, and a worthwhile pursuit -- it will undoubtedly unlock a plethora of new business models for music, and allow artists to figure out their own optimal model.

Free is not enough

There's been a great deal of debate lately around the Freemium business model that Fred Wilson helped describe (and a commenter helped name). Many take it as an inevitability, others as a bogus and destructive force. I'm a believer, personally, but I also think it's horribly misunderstood as a model and, frankly, not very new.

The first thing to understand is that free isn't a business model, it's a piece of a business model. No company, band, or person will ever make money on free. Free = $0 income. Duh.

The second thing to understand, then, is that there's always been a piece of a business model that was value "wasted" -- generating no directly measurable return. For ages, big companies have thrown empty money at marketing departments, asking them to provide the consumer with entertainment so that they might build brand equity -- radio or tv was the medium, and ads were designed to pique the audience's interest. Advertising is entertainment for an attention-wealthy consumer base.

The problem for those companies is that the attention-wealthy consumer base is dwindling as the internet (among other things) helps put a wealth of options at the consumer's fingertips. Andy Sernovitz has one of my favorite marketing quotes of all time is "Advertising is the cost of being boring." In an attention-scarce world, advertising is a last resort.

So what replaces advertising in the marketing department? Higher quality, more targeted content. In the music world, this means digital files or streams distributed to fans and potential fans via their chosen method online. As with any other industry, you pay for quality and convenience -- you pay for cable to get more and better shows, but still get commercials; you could bypass those commercials by spending even more money on a DVR and spending the value of being among the first to watch by waiting for the program to record; you could spend more time and money to reduce commercials to a screen wipe by buying the DVDs; or you could spend more time and effort searching online and downloading the videos. All above factors being equal, experience wins: companies (read: Hulu) win when they find the right balance of quality, convenience, and monetization.

In the music industry, people began demanding the convenience of MP3s, and no content owners wanted to make them convenient or at the right price (that right price being whatever the fan thinks is fair). The content was going to get free eventually, with no cost of packaging or distribution, but "piracy" reigned as a result of the resistance of the content rights holders to provide that content conveniently and at a rate the rights holders and fans could agree upon. They didn't realize the inverse relationship between attention and necessity for convenience, nor the shift of media for their advertising dollars from endcaps and radio promo to studio and production costs, so the fans figured it out for them. Apple has won the market to this point solely on convenience -- if it weren't for the success of the iPod, there's no way iTunes would be the leading retailer after having clung to DRM and proprietary formats for so long.

It's not free that's killing businesses, it's that free is not enough. It's the inefficient use of free and the inability to find alternative methods of monetization.

Chester French gained tens of thousands of email addresses by giving away an entire album's worth of content for free on their website. People were willing to exchange their contact info for the value of the mixtape, because the band made it easier than searching around on P2P networks. Most of those people went on to buy a record and/or ticket to a show, again, because they made it easy (he emailed them all a link to a page on his website) and at an appropriate price ($7.99 for digital download, $13.99 for vinyl or cd, $19.99 for vinyl or cd + tshirt + poster). They gave the fans options to self-select their level of support for his brand, and the vast majority went with one of the higher-priced options.

The only worry on an album "leaking" at this point (if anyone cares about you, it's almost inevitable) is that you don't make it more convenient for fans to get at a reasonable price. That price can be free (though I'd advise that if you're making it more convenient than other sources you should at least get some contact info) or whatever the "reasonable" price you and your fans agree upon by them transacting -- keep in mind many folks like to shop for deals, so convenience is only a relatively small markup. I've worked with a number of artists whose albums I've had on my iPod even before knowing I was going to be helping "put out" the record, and all have made significant revenues off whatever delivery channels they made convenient for the fans.

Need more evidence that free is not enough? I have spent over $1500 on music in the last year, according to Mint.com (which is a severe underestimate as it doesn't account for cash purchases nor many other music-related purchases). I have almost exactly 1500 songs in my iTunes library that have zero plays, another 1415 with one play, and 5000 total (would take 14 days to play, 35.16 gb of music) with 5 or fewer plays. I can point to maybe 5 of those bands that I've ever spent money on. You can give me your music, but you can't make me listen to it.

The next stage of music, when the triviality of "free" content has passed, is getting in peoples' ears. I've said before that I think a great deal of that will be through tastemakers, and that other artists (or their brands) are likely to be the most profitable tastemakers. Tastemakers add context and relevance to convenience, and should have the ability to offer content at a fair and reasonable price, and should benefit as a result of their addition of context and relevance. Currently, blogs are compensated almost solely through ad sales (and some through promotions and concerts) as a payoff for their ability to bring in eyes and ears, and precious few are even remotely profitable that way. Sites like HypeMachine and iMeem add another level of convenience (you can find almost any track you want merely by searching), and pick up affiliate fees if the user clicks through to purchase a track on iTunes or Amazon (the biggest bottom-line difference between the two being that iMeem hosts the content and thus has to pay streaming bandwidth fees and royalties, and spend their efforts on negotiations and legal battles whereas HypeMachine can innovate great, engaging, context-adding features like Twitter charts).

As new business models emerge in the music industry (all incorporating a free component as marketing), I have little doubt that more business models will emerge for tastemakers. Major labels missed their chance at retaining their status as tastemakers, and now have to earn it all over again. As they rebuild their own reputations (and I have faith they can get there), they'll begin to start letting artists pay them to leverage their connections with the real tastemakers (as we saw today with UMG's deal with Tunecore). Someday soon, though, those tastemakers will also have methods of monetizing their connections -- and yes, free will be part of their business models too. Whomever can get people to listen has the opportunity to make money, and those who can get listeners to take actions have the greatest opportunity. Same thing goes for any business in any industry, and that's nothing new.

The interesting piece of the puzzle is not the changes in business models, but how companies and industries adjust to the changing landscape. The underlying business principles remain the same: those who can provide the highest quality content conveniently have potential for revenue, and those who select the right business model and provide the right context for the content will wind up profiting.

What happened to my radio?: The new profitable tastemakers

In my last post, I alluded to some of my views on licensing songs and the ties (or, more accurately, lack thereof) to Lifetime Value (LTV) of fans, and thus careers for the musicians. Now I would like to clarify my thoughts on ties between bands and brands and give a sense of how I believe the most mutually beneficial relationships can be built.

I believe that bands and brands have very strong natural ties, and that bands should really be thought of as brands in their own right. The key demographic for up and coming bands is generally the teenagers and young adults, which today is Generation Y. Known as the first generation to grow up with a true comfort with technology, having known no life without computers, we are distrustful of advertising and seek deeper relationships with the organizations to whom we give our time and money.

Music is a well-known key to human emotion. It also influences relationships - people who like the same music are almost instantaneous friends, thanks to a connection felt at a more primal level. Friends are also known to enjoy similar products and brands - they make similar connections influenced by shared experiences and compatible ideologies.

The key, then, is finding where these connections (between consumer and brand, and between that consumer and band) have potential overlap, and leveraging that connection to benefit both parties.

Your car commercial has a catchy tune in it, don't you think some folks might catch onto that (don't you want them to?) and want a download of that song? They would, and they would appreciate you for being the one to recommend it to them. You're building customer loyalty among people who aren't even necessarily your customers yet.

Afternoons had a song in a Lincoln commercial that premiered during The Grammys. I would love to have that mp3 by going to LincolnMusic.com, would be thankful to Lincoln for introducing me to it, and while I'm not in the market for a car right now, I'd have a slightly more favorable opinion of Lincoln. Lincoln, in turn, would have my email address (which they could use to introduce me to more music and further build my trust and respect, NOT to spam my inbox with nonstop car ads), my potential to spread the word to more friends (and thus fans of Lincoln), and a potential lifetime fan of their brand (bringing them perhaps as many as five to twenty purchases).

Traditionally, radio has made a living off being intermediaries -- brokering these relationships through their professional tastemaking and controlling the distribution channel (the AM and FM frequencies of our car and personal stereos). Thanks to the Internet and digital music, the distribution channels are no longer restricted -- brands and bands have access to each other and to the fans through a single channel with no need for intermediaries. (In fact, the Gen-Y fans would prefer not to have intermediaries.)

Many brands, of course, will be slow to understand these benefits. Corporations aren't often used to the concepts of direct ROI from marketing spends -- the people working the income sheets and the people spending the marketing money are on different floors and probably have never met. The onus (and thus, business), then, is on consultancies like Brands + Music to show the finance departments why they should be hired to project manage the marketing department's relationships regarding music. In the future, however, it would in no way surprise me to see brands whose target audience is largely Gen-Y starting music departments to help identify and build relationships with bands with similar demographic fanbases.

While brands may be somewhat sluggish to realize the potential of deeper relationships with artists and mutual fans, successful artists (remember, an artist is a brand, too) can coin themselves as tastemakers and built their own brands. You already see it happening, both with an increased number of vanity imprints (artists starting their own labels to help bring legitimacy to their friends and other bands they like) and with artists like Kanye West, whose blog mentions send page views through the roof for anyone fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of a link. In both cases, the artists leverage their existing fans' trust of their brand to become tastemakers and drive benefits for other b(r)ands, and in turn themselves.

The hope, of course, is to be able to automate some of the identification process for all parties involved -- many of the biggest changes to come about in the Internet era have come as a result of taking manual effort out of business processes. The technology will soon exist to have your brand grow many times in size by being the modern equivalent of the cool DJ in town, an opportunity you may not immediately think relevant. Of course, technology is just a tool, and the brands and artists who employ the tools make their own fates and fortunes with their usage -- technology will never be a substitute for genuinely identifying with the brand you sell and using your own passion to connect with the fans of your brand and desire to add value to their lives.



As a side-note, I'm sure questions will arise as to the potential of "regular" individuals to become tastemakers. To some extent, there is, but it will have to be through a channel they define for themselves (generally through blogs), rather than through sites like SUURGE. Musicane's (and many others) original business model presupposed fans would appreciate being rewarded for their music recommendations to friends. What they failed to realize was how pithy rewards from not having a substantially large sphere of influence is actually a demotivator (people would rather recommend out of passion than see a couple pennies). Where Amie Street separates themselves is by becoming a tastemaker in their own right by aggregating fan inputs (their biggest sales driver is moderated weekly emails with personal recommendations) -- their users buy based on their view of Amie St as a tastemaker, and getting small discounts is a nice side benefit that makes them feel good for being a part of the community.

Turn a virus into reverberation to get lasting fans

There have been a couple New York Times articles recently that have stood out to me. The first was Jon Pareles's piece on "Songs From the Heart of a Marketing Plan," discussing the licensing business's rise in recent years (thanks to DA of Chester French for the tip). The second was Gregory Schmidt's article on Broadway's use of MySpace and other viral techniques to fill theater seats. Both articles are about new ways for the arts to generate awareness.

The final quote of the Schmidt article touches on a point that I've been adamant about: “In the theater, there is only one proven marketing technique that works: to generate word of mouth,” Mr. McCollum said. “Everything else is a shot in the dark.”

Viral Marketing techniques are little more than the next generation billboard or TV ad -- they generate a bit of brand awareness if executed properly, but don't have any real lasting effects. You may see a spike in traffic as a result of a Viral Marketing campaign, but it rarely has any meaningful long-term revenue impact. Same goes for music licensing -- having your song licensed for a commercial is often good exposure, downloads of the single on iTunes will spike, as will MySpace plays, but how many new fans has it given you?

I actually admire the band Chairlift for deliberately not calling attention to the fact that their song "Bruises" was featured in the latest iPod Nano commercial ("I tried to do handstands for you..."). They knew that by making a big deal about one song being featured on TV, they'd alienate their true fans and make a big statement about their intentions as artists (to make money and get famous quickly instead of caring about their art and the fans who have supported them from the start).

As Seth Godin has posited for many years now, the best products, those that sell and that people love, are the ones with the marketing built in. Andy Sernovitz says "Advertising is the cost of being boring," and he's absolutely right. Viral Marketing is little more than a new generation of advertising -- its purpose is to generate brand awareness rather than create long-term fans and customers.

Reverberation Marketing, on the other hand, happens when a product (be it an album or a bottle of soap) is worth talking about and is properly exposed to its target audience. The first part, that it's worth talking about, must be baked into the product. The second piece, exposure to the target audience, is the job of a marketer.

Fleet Foxes have topped a vast number of Album of the Year lists (including my own), but that has nothing to do with the fact that their CD was available at Starbucks. In fact, the Starbucks deal came after they were playing sold out shows to thousands of die-hard fans around the world. They built a remarkable product, and exposed it talkers and tastemakers in their target audience (Pitchfork.com, for example). They continued to build with a tour opening for Wilco, a band with a similar target audience, and are now selling out headlining shows in Australia.

Perhaps most importantly, the fans they've made will stick with them. Viral Marketing encourages flash-in-the-pan artists or brands, whereas Reverberation Marketing builds a lasting fan-base that can be marketed to for years to come.

Fleet Foxes have focused on their fans, rather than general exposure, as they recognize the true fans will allow them to do what they love for the rest of their lives. I talked to them briefly after a sold-out show at The El Ray in October and they said they would be thrilled to play to that crowd at that venue for the rest of their lives if that's where their fans were. They even mock the marketing ploys of dollar-driven artists in a recent blog post:

"We have found the perfect place to record our next record, we've rented a barn/house in Port Townsend a few miles from where my dad used to build boats, and we're gonna build a big ole Titanic that will seem indestructible but will actually sink quite easily due to something minor that we overlooked (something like hella world beat / glitch pop influences or a continuous literal narrative). SO watch out for FORD AUTOMOTIVE PRESENTS FLEET FOXES II: TIDES OF THE UNDERDEMON, SERMON 3:16 exclusively at Best Buy, January 17th 2009!"

So what can they do next? Make the ties to their existing fans stronger. Get more direct contact routes than MySpace (email addresses, cell phone numbers, etc) in order to increase quality of communication (read: segmentation by location or depth of connection (single purchase vs large purchase and sharing)) and strengthen the connection. Understand what those fans want from them, understand who else those fans are listening to, reward the fans who help spread their message, and most of all continue to be themselves.

The true fans have come because they feel an untainted connection to the band. They will support the band for years to come. The folks who buy your single off iTunes because they heard your song on a commercial are virtually meaningless in comparison. Thinking financially of the lifetime value (LTV) of each:

• True fan: Buys 3 albums (3 x $10), 1 vinyl ($15), tickets to 5 shows (5 x $20), and 2 t-shirts (2 x $15). Also, they inspire 3 other fans, who might spend half that on average. Total LTV = $437.50
• Single purchaser: Buys one single on iTunes ($.99), likes it enough to buy the whole album (rarely happens -- perhaps 1 in 20 at best). Total LTV = $9.99

Obviously nearly every artist is going to have some of each. Exposure is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it might help create more true fans. However, your time is much better spent targeting the true fans than worrying about a sheer number of ears you can get your music in. True fans enable reverberation for years to come.

For more on how targeting true fans can benefit the bottom line more than mass exposure (and some great examples), I highly recommend Ian Rogers's recent keynote speech from the GRAMMY Northwest MusicTech Summit.

First Aid Kit: A story of discovery

Many folks ask me how I discover music. I wish I had an easy answer. I download a lot of stuff (both albums and playlists, which sometimes inform album purchases) via torrent or other filesharing options, I also read the occasional blog, and hear about a lot of good music from coworkers and friends. I don't use Pandora, I scrobble to Last.fm but never look at it, and I keep the iTunes Genius sidebar open but I'm not sure why (it's not like I look at iTunes when I listen to music--I click once and it plays).
I can speak in broad generalizations all day, but I thought it best to take you through how I found out about a couple teenage sisters from Sweden in a band called First Aid Kit. Every time I play them for someone the immediate response is "Who is this??" (in a good way). But I can't take credit for finding them.
I first found out about First Aid Kit from Peter Rauh via a Twitter message: "Some inspiration for the day: Two Swedish teenagers covering Fleet Foxes in the woods (no lie) http://tinyurl.com/5svkol" The link takes you to this video:


After I told Peter how much I loved the video, he told me he heard about it via Light In The Attic.
I downloaded the mp3 of the song for free, and checked out their MySpace profile. From there, I bought their record from Klicktrack.
After more than a few listens in a short time span, I knew others would enjoy the music, so I published an OpenTape player on my website:

I told a number of friends about the music, and my friend Britti even thought she played them on her radio show. Unfortunately, she had come across another band by the same name, this one from Spain -- goes to show you the importance of picking an original name for a band.
At any rate, I hope you all enjoy First Aid Kit as much as I do. I think they're mature beyond their years, and anyone who fashions themselves after the Fleet Foxes is A-OK in my book.

Collective Patronage: Your next advance is from your fans

Collective Patronage is not a new concept (heck, a quick Google search turned up this article from 2001 -- the author says "I can think of four local San Francisco-area bands, and one each in Minneapolis and New York, to whom I would happily give $25/year to support their music"), but only now is it beginning to be properly realized in the music industry. The idea is a return to the days of classical music, when composers were paid by their wealthy patrons to compose music that everyone could enjoy.
In a perfect world, someone richer than you would pay for your favorite bands to make lots of great music for you to enjoy for free. However, we live in a democracy with a free(ish) market, so we all have to do our part.
Artists are no longer confined by a physical medium (CD, cassette, vinyl, etc) as their flagship product, and fans have many options to avoid paying for music. Yet many, if not most, of us still pay for music that we like. In talking to others who work in the industry, the standard routine seems to be to download a number of albums without paying, take them for a few spins, and pay for the ones you like.
Had I said that 5 years ago, I would've had the RIAA all over me. As it stands, however, much of the fear of file sharing has subsided -- heck, there are even "marketing" companies who will seed your album on torrent sites.
While many of the barriers to entry for artists to produce and distribute music have diminished, they have not disappeared. Artists still need to cover recording costs, equipment costs, gas costs, etc. Claiming "oh, they can make that money on the road" only applies to a select few bands (and that number is diminished with high gas prices and harsh economic conditions).
Artists need fans, and they need some of those fans to pay some money. Yes, those "some"s are intentional. Fans can pay in many ways (eg - pay attention, pay permission to market to them, etc), but some of the fans do need to contribute money for the band's survival.
Some services have sprung up with the concept of Collective Patronage in mind -- SellABand.com, SliceThePie.com, etc -- but those are focused exclusively on unsigned, relatively unknown artists, and instead of fostering a true relationship between artists and fans, they are more of a game for the fans and a one-time "make or break" for the artists. In other words, they're not focused on long-term, sustainable growth. They also fall short in extending the concept of Collective Patronage to larger, more established artists.
"Oh, but the big artists have labels to cut them big checks!" Sure, sort of. But even large artists could do better for themselves taking checks directly from their fans rather than from labels. Think about it: with how much they're struggling, and with all their bureaucracy, would major labels make a major investment were they not almost positive they could recoup? Not likely.
Take the David Byrne - Brian Eno release Everything That Happens Will Happen Today -- by contract I can't speak to specific numbers, but the goal was to recoup recording costs and make as much as they would have made from a major label advance. Perhaps that was a bit audacious, considering the amount of marketing money a major label would have dropped, but guess what? The album hit that goal in well under the three months it's been out -- long before it even hit traditional retail outlets or iTunes/Amazon. Not only that, but both artists draw from a slightly older fanbase that isn't as likely to dig for music online.
Even ETH was a fairly traditional release -- digital only, digital plus CD, and digital plus limited edition tin with bonus disc. To move to a system truly based on Collective Patronage, a group of fans would all pay an agreed-upon sum to an artist each year to ensure that artist continues to produce music. In exchange, they receive access to all the artist's output for that year, plus maybe a few extra bonuses. Essentially, it's a subscription or membership to the artist.
Josh Rouse posts an album of some sort each month for his patrons (okay, subscribers) to download. Jubilee recorded an EP, gathered patrons based on that EP, and put the money they collected towards further recording (which, of course, the patrons receive for free).
I've probably belabored the point more than I need to, but I encourage fans to become patrons of their favorite artists, and artists to seek out patrons -- we all want to make each other a little bit happier and bring a little more beauty to the world through music. Some have the talent and inspiration, others have the money.

Why Trent Reznor Rules

I hope this shows up decently. If not please view it at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/2877586803/sizes/o/